
    [35] DORSEY AND ANOTHER v. KOLLOCK.
    Papers containing distinct settlements, at different times, and the sums due each time stated; the last settlement, prima.facie, includes and extinguishes the first. It is, however, a question of fact for the jury to decide, from all the circumstances of the case.
    This action was brought to recover the amount of two due-bills signed by defendant. On the first, it appeared to have been written—
    “2d May, 1788. Settled; due £89-6-0.” On the second,
    “10th Sep., 1788. Settled, and due, specie, £91-6-6.”
    “ and paper, £10-1-9.”
    
      A. Ogden, for defendant,
    stated that these were not distinct balances due, but the last bill included the first, and amounted in law to an insimul eomputassent; and he prayed the court to charge the jury accordingly.
   Per Curiam.

These different papers must prima facie be considered as evidence of general settlements at the time of their respective dates. The term “settled,” implies a general, not “special account.” If a man will create evidence against himself, it is better he should suffer, than that a general and correct rule of evidence be violated. Circumstances, however, may be shown in evidence to rebut this presumption of the law; and one very material fact among others shown for the consideration of the jury in the present ease, is, that both bills remain in the possession of the plaintiff. The jury are to consider the evidence, and weigh all the circumstances; if they think one is included in the other, their verdict will only be for the amount of the last; if not, for both.

Verdict for both bills claimed.  