Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the holder of a promissory note is affected by a material alteration in the instrument when the alteration has been made by a stranger and there has been no fraud or laches on the part of the holder. On the 15th October, 1928, the appellant executed a promissory note in favour of the adoptive father of the respondent who is a minor. The father died in 1929, being survived by his wife in addition to the respondent, who continued to live with his adoptive mother who is his legal guardian. On the 12th October, 1931, the appellant paid Rs. 10 on account of the debt due on the instrument and the fact of payment was endorsed on the instrument. On the 22nd October, 1934, the respondent, through his mother filed a suit to enforce payment of the amount then due. It was pleaded by the appellant that there were two material alterations in the note, and it is now accepted by the respondent that the plea was justified. The alterations consisted in the changing of the date of the promissory note from the 15th October, 1928 to the 25th October, 1928, and the date of the endorsement from the 12th October, 1931