To make a thing different from what it was; as, by cutting out a brandmark. 3 The word implies "another." A thing which ceased to exist can in no proper sense be said to be "altered." If altered it has merely changed its form or nature, but still has an existence. Thus, in forgery making may be by an original fabrication or by merely changing a thing already made into another thing. An altered note is still a note.4 To "alter judicial districts" means to change them. It is not a violation of usage to speak of the increasing or diminishing of a given number as an alteration or change in the number. Alteration. 1. A change or substitution of one thing for another: as, the alteration of a way.6 See ADDITION, 1. 2. An act done upon an instrument by which its meaning or language is changed. If what is written or erased has no tendency to produce this result or to mislead it is not an "alteration." The term applies to the act of the party entitled under the instrument and imports some fraud or improper design to change its effect. The act of a stranger is a mere "spoliation" or mutilation of the instrument, and does not change its legal operation as long as the original writing remains legible, and, if it be a deed, any trace of the seal remains.7 Material alteration. Such alteration as changes the language or meaning of the contract in a material particular. Immaterial alteration. Such merely verbal change as does not vary the contract in an essential particular.8 Suspicious alteration. Such change, apparent upon inspection, as would lead a man of ordinary caution to infer that the instru1 Evans v. Knorr, 4 Rawle, 68-70 (1833), cases; 22 111. 366. 2 L. L. alterare: L. alter, other, another. Smith v. Brown, 1 Wend. 236 (1828). Haynes v. State, 15 Ohio St. 457 (1864). 5 People v. Sassovich, 29 Cal. 484 (1866). • Johnson v. Wyman, 9 Gray, 189 (1857), Shaw, C. J. [1 Greenl. Εν. § 566. See Woodworth v. Bank of America, 19 Johns. 391 (1821): 10 Am. Dec. 267-73 (1879), cases. ment had been illegally tampered with; or such apparent change in the language as would deter such person from accepting the instrument as reliable evidence of indebtedness or of an obligation. That is a "material alteration" which causes the instrument to speak a language different in legal effect from what it originally spoke; 1 or which gives the instrument a different legal effect.2 A material alteration made without consent after execution avoids the instrument; but not so as to words which the law would supply. The question of materiality is for the court. If attested as made before execution does not detract from credit; nor, if it is against the interest of the holder. If suspicious upon its face, the law presumes nothing, but leaves questions of time, person, and intent, to the decision of a jury. If immaterial, presumed to have been made before execution. But some authorities require explanation before any altered instrument can be admitted in evidence.3 It will not be presumed that a party would sign a document with material clauses interlined or in the margin. The rule is strict as to negotiables. The burden of explaining alterations in ancient writings is not imposed when they are taken from their proper repository. Formal blanks may always be filled. The material alteration of a written contract by a party to it discharges a party who does not authorize or consent to the alteration, because it destroys the identity of the contract and substitutes a different agreement. Any change which alters the contract, whether increasing or diminishing liability, is "material." 5 Some authorities hold that where there are no particular circumstances of suspicion the presumption of law is that the alteration was made contemporaneously with the execution, giving as a reason that a deed cannot be altered after its execution without fraud, which is never assumed without proof; other authorities hold the presumption to be the other way, and require an explanation of the alteration before the deed can be admitted in evidence. In the absence of proof the presumption is that a correction by erasure in a deed (a patent to land) was made before execution. This doctrine rests upon principle. "A deed cannot be altered after it is executed without fraud or wrong; and the presumption is against fraud or wrong." The cases are not uniform in this country, but the most stringent ones leave the question to the jury." 11 Greenl. Ev. § 565; 9 Baxt. 462. 2 Eckert v. Pickel, 59 Iowa, 547-48 (1882); 51 id. 675; 30 Minn. 154; 76 Va. 545, 544; 18 Ct. Cl. 565. 31 Greenl. Ev. §§ 564-68; 61 Ala. 269; 2 Bl. Com. 308. 41 Whart. Ev. §§ 621-32, 732, cases. Mersman v. Werges, 112 U. S. 141 (1884), cases, Gray, J.; Angle v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 92 id. 342 (1875). • Malarin v. United States, 1 Wall. 288 (1863), Field, J. Little v. Herndon, 10 Wall. 31 (1869), cases, Nel.