143 Ga. 183 | Ga. | 1915
1. In a suit based upon a promissory note,.where the defendant pleaded that he had directed the application of funds arising from the collection of certain collateral securities alleged to have been left by him in the hands of the plaintiff, it was competent for the defendant, after the introduction in evidence of a certain writing signed by him, which purported to put the title to these collateral securities in the plaintiff, to introduce evidence to show that while he did sign this writing he did so at a time when he was hurrying to catch a train, that he
2. It was error for the court, referring to the paper just mentioned, to say, in the presence of the jury, “Suppose he did not have time — he signed it, didn’t he?”
Judgment reversed.