He denies that the defendant received his license to practice law be-
fore the ist of May, i866, or before the 26th of August, i866.
                                   BULLITT, BULLITT  HARRIS,
                                            Attorneys for Plaimiff.

              INSTRUCTIONS OF THE COURT.
  1st. The burden of proof is on the defendant 'to show that he did
not mutilate, or cause to be mutilated, the records of the Circuit and
County Courts of Rowan county, or any part thereof.
  2d. The jury are the sole judges of the credibility of each and all
the witnesses who have testified in the case; and, further, it is the duty
of the jury to weigh and consider all the evidence in the case, and it is
their duty and province to give that weight and effect to all of the evi-
dence and the testimony of each and all the witnesses, to which, in
their judgment, it may be entitled.
  3d. The law in i866 made it necessary, before a license to practice
law could be granted, that the applicant therefor should first obtain
from the County Court of the county of his residence a certificate
that he was a man of honesty, probity, and good demeanor, and that
such certificate should be produced or presented to the judges to whom
the application for license was made. No special time was necessary
within which, after the obtaining of the certificate, it should be so pre-
sented to the judges to whom the application for license was made.
  In this case the jury are instructed that the signing and granting of
his license to defendant by Judges Andrews and Apperson is to be re-
garded by them as conclusive evidence of the fact that the requisite
certificate of his honesty. probity, and good demeanor had been thereto-
fore obtained and presented or produced by him to said judges; but
not as to the particular day or time when said order of the County
Court of Rowan county was made.

               QUESTIONS ASKED THE JURY.
  As a special verdict has been asked for in this case, the jury are
directed to answer the following questions of fact:
  I. Was the defendant's license to practice law in this State, signed
and granted to him by the Judges, Andrews and Apperson, before the
first day of August, i866
  2. Was the defendant sworn in the Rowan County Court as a prac-
ticing lawyer at any time before the first day of August, i866
  3. Did thee defendant Hargis at any time before the publication of
his card in June, I879, mutilate or cause to be mutilated the records of
the Circuit and County Courts of Rowan county, or any part of the
same 
  4. If the jury in answer to question No. 3 find that said defendant,
Hargis, did not mutilate or cause to be mutilated the records therein
named or any part thereof, then they need make no further answer.
If, however, they shall find in answer to question No. 3 that said de-
fendant did mutilate or cause to be mutilated said records or any part
of the same, then they will consider and fix the amount of plaintiffs
damages at such sum within that claimed, as under the evidence they
deem fit and proper.



122



APPENDIX.