
    Tisloe v. Graeter.
    Assumpsit on the following instrument of writing: “Reed. Vincennes, Sep. 14th, 1822, of P. Tisloe, 200 dollars for safe-keeping.” Held, that the defendant could not introduce parol testimony to prove, that the money was not deposited for safe-keeping, but was paid in discharge of a debt.
    ERROR to the Knox Circuit Court. — Assumpsit by Tisloe against Graeter for money deposited for safe-keeping, and for money had and received. Pleas, non-assumpsit and payment. Verdict and judgment for the defendant.
    
      Judah, for the plaintiff
    
      Nelson, for the defendant.
   Blackford, J.

It is shown by a bill of exceptions, that upon the trial of this cause, the plaintiff gave in evidence the following receipt: “Reed. Vincennes, Sep. 14th, 1822, of P. Tisloe, 200 dollars for safe-keeping. — Ch. Graeter.” The defendant offered parol testimony to prove, “that the money in the receipt mentioned was not deposited for safe-keeping as therein stated, but was paid to the defendant in payment of a certain debt;* which evidence was objected to, but admitted by the Court. This, parol evidence should have been rejected. It goes to contradict, in the most express and direct terms, the written contract of the parties. W ritten testimony may be explained, but not directly contradicted, by parol evidence .

Per Curiam.

The judgment is reversed, and the verdict set aside, with costs. Cause remanded, Sic. 
      
       Vide Chitt. on Cont. 22 — 28. Odam v. Beard, ante, p. 191, and note.
     