Kirkpatrick v. Armstrong

— The appellant insists upon a single cause for a new trial, namely, that the court erred in denying him the open and close of the evidence and argument upon his separate defence.

The action was against the appellant and one Giles, for the breach of a contract, which was pleaded as the basis of the •complaint and which purported to have been executed by Giles as the principal obligor, and by the appellant as surety. The defendants each appeai’ed and answered separately, Giles by a general denial, and the appellant by pleas in confession and avoidance.. Upon these issues the plaintiffs clearly…