Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/452

 444 FEDERAL REPORTER. �letter, Exliibit No. 1, appeared to be an answer, was testified to by the witness as being enclosed in such a stamped envelope, bearing the postmark of the Trenton office, and he testified that he delivered it to the superintendant of the registered letter department at the New York post-office on the sixth of November, 1879, the day after its date, and the day before the date of Exhibit No. . 1. The argument is that this evi- dence shows such a deviation from the System of business on which this presumption resta that the presumption fails. We think, however, that there is nothing in this evidence which Controls or prevents the application of the general ruie of evidence that the regular postmark is presumptive evidence of the mailing of the letter. It does not show, as def endant's counsel claims, any "gross irregularities on the part ôf officiais of the post-office, or that the supposed System is so disre- garded as to be no System." Notwithstanding the occasional departures from the rule shown, which appears to have been in aid of justice, the general rule remains that the postmark is an indication that the letter offered in evidence bas been through the mails. �Upon the whole case, therefore, we ônd no error upon the trial, and the motion for a new trial must be overruled. ���BwENSON w. Halbero and another. (Circuit Court, B. Minneiota. March, 18S0.) �FORECLOSDKE BY ADVBRTISEMENT — NOTICB OP SALE — CLArM FOU AT- �toenby's Fbes. — The insertioa of a claim for |Jtl, for attornay's fees, in the published notice of a foreclosure sale, under a statute of the st;>te of Minnesota, -where the raortgage only stipulated for the payment of $25 for attorney'8 fees, in the event of such foreclosure, will not invali- date a sale made in accordance with such notice, in the absence of fraud and prejudice to the mortgagor orowner of the equity of redemption. Bame — Sale of Sevehal Tbactb in One Faiîcbi,. — The sale of several tracts in one parce!, contraiy to the provisions of such statute, will not be disturbed, in the absence of fraud and prejudice to the mortgagor or owner of the equity of redemption. ��� �