The Court charged that the plaintiff could not recover on the first count, stating the note as dated in 1831, for that was barred by limitation. That though the act of limitation would not apply to the second count, plaintiff could not recover on that if the note was dated in 1835 and altered to 1831, for that avoids the note, unless satisfactorily explained by the plaintiff. The note being altered in his possession, puts him to the necessity of such explanation.
But if neither of the special counts were proved, the plaintiff was at liberty to re-lsort to his common counts, and could recover if he had satisfactorily [proved the lending of the money. | The plaintiff had a verdict; and there was a motion and rule to [show cause why it should not be set aside for misdirection on the [last ground. This motion was not further prosecuted.