
    Humes v. Day.
    A witness discharged of his interest ought to he admitted. The issue put must be answered directly.
    Error to reverse a judgment of a justice in an action brought by said Day against Humes, upon a note of hand, dated the llth of February A. D. 1189, for £1 2s., payable ou demand with interest.
    Plea — Full payment before the date and service of the plaintiff’s writ, on which the parties were at issue.
    To prove said payment the defendant offered one Israel Bates as a witness. The plaintiff objected, that said Bates sometime before had promised and engaged to indemnify the defendant against said note and all cost and damage he might sustain thereon. Upon which two discharges were produced from said Humes to said Bates, dated subsequent to said undertaking, discharging said witness from all demands generally and particularly from his agreement to indemnify him on account of said note; yet said justice refused to> admit said Bates as a witness —• upon which the defendant filed his bill of exceptions, stating the above facts which were allowed by the justice. And said justice proceeded and gave judgment — That he was of opinion that the matter alleged in the defendant’s plea in bar, is not sufficiently proved and that the plaintiff recover, etc.
    Errors assigned — 1st. That said justice ought to have admitted said Bates a witness. 2d. That said justice had not found the issue one way or the other.
   Judgment — Manifest error for both causes assigned in error.  