
    Leiper vs. Erwin.
    The character of the creditor for strictness and closeness in the collection of his debts, may be given in evidence as a circumstance to show that a debt has been paid after eight years have elapsed.
    In 1820, defendant sued David King, obtained a judgment which Leiper stayed. Stay was out 10th May, 1821; execution issued 11th; officer went to King; Coleman paid 010, and promised to pay the rest soon; officer told Erwin of this, who said well, do not press the execution until I tell you. He never told the officer to push, but waited until 1829, Coleman being dead, and then took out this execution against Leiper, whq brought it up by certiorari. The court refused to let King be examined both before and after he was released; refused on application of defendant below to have plaintiff sworn, and charged that the lapse of eight years was not sufficient to authorize presumption of payment; refused evidence that Erwin was a close and strict collector. • David King was solvent long after the judgment.
    Collinsworth, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Craighead, for defendant.
   Peck, J.

delivered the opinion of the court'.

The court erred when he instructed the jury that the proof made by the defendant below, “that plaintiff was a close and strict collector, ” was illegal evidence, and should by them be disregarded. We are all of opinion, that under the circumstances the evidence was admissible, and that the jury should have been left to consider of it.

Judgment reversed.  