
    John Hilton vs. William Scarborough.
    The wealth of the maker of a promissory note, and his dealings with third persons, are incompetent evidence to prove payment of the note.
    Assumpsit by the indorsee against the maker of a promissory note. At the trial in the court of common pleas, the defendant admitted his signature, but relied on the defence of payment, and obtained a verdict. Bishop, J. signed a bill of exceptions, of which the following' is the material part: “ The defendant, to raise a presumption of payment, offered a witness to prove that the defendant, for several years past, had had means to pay the amount of the note in suit; which was objected to by the plaintiff, but admitted by the judge. The witness was then permitted to state what the defendant’s general reputation had been as to property and credit, since the date of the note and suit; and what private dealings the witness had had with the defendant in the mean time; though both inquiries were objected to by the plaintiff.”
    
      S. C. Bancroft, for the plaintiff.
    
      S. H. Phillips, for the defendant.
   By the Court.

No authority was cited in support of the admission of the evidence to raise a presumption of payment. Such evidence proves nothing. The fact of the reputed wealth of the defendant, and his supposed ability to pay whenever called upon, might have furnished the very reasons operating on the plaintiff’s mind to allow the note to remain uncollected. The admission of the evidence of the private dealings of the witness with the defendant was still more objectionable.

Exceptions sustained.  