¶1The note declared on in this case was for $100, signed by the defendant, and payable to the plaintiff, or order. Upon the production of the note, it appeared to have been changed from a note for $100 to a note for $136, or $156, in the manner stated in the exceptions.
¶2It was proved at the trial, that this note was originally a valid note for $100, and it was not pretended that it had ever been changed with the knowledge or consent of the defendant. The note was not indorsed, and, so far as appears, had always been owned by the plaintiff, and in his possession or in that of his agent.
¶3These changes, under the circumstances, rendered the note prima facie void, and the burden was upon the plaintiff to explain them. If the changes had been made by the plaintiff, or by his authority or consent, directly or indirectly, the note was *568absolutely void. Adams v. Frye, 3 Met. 103. Fay v. Smith, 1 Allen, 477. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 564. But if the changes had been made by a stranger, without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff, directly or indirectly, the note remained a valid note, according to its original tenor. Adamsv. Frye, ubi supra. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 566.
¶4If the plaintiff proved that the note had never rightfully, or to his knowledge, been in the possession of any one but himself and his agent, and that the alterations were not made by him or his agent, or with the knowledge or consent, directly or indirectly, of either of them, he was entitled to recover on the note, as originally written, though he might not be able to prove the circumstances of its alteration; and there was evidence tending to show that these were the facts in this case.
¶5We are of opinion that the judge erred in instructing the jury, as he apparently did, in effect, that proof of the state of facts above supposed would not entitle the plaintiff to recover. Of course, we express no opinion as to the credibility of the evidence at the trial, or the probability that such changes as were made in the note would have been made by a stranger. These are considerations for the jury.
¶6If, as we infer from the exceptions, the tenor of the note, as originally written, was apparent upon inspection of the note, it was sufficient to declare upon it in the usual way; and, upon showing that the changes in the note were mere spoliations, there would be no variance between the allegation and proof.
¶7Exceptions sustained.