
    Atkinson against Graham.
    Evidence in derogation of the plaintiff’s character, which is not put in issue by the pleadings, is inadmissible.
    In an action on a note it is not competent to prove the declarations of the plaintiff as to the state of the accounts between him and the defendant, made at a period prior to the date of the note. Those made subsequently are evidence.
    ERROR to the common pleas of Fayette county.
    C. Atkinson against J. Graham. Debt on a sealed note, dated the 27th of March 1832.
    On the trial of the cause the defendant proposed to give evidence of the character of the plaintiff as to honesty. The plaintiff objected, but the court overruled the objection and sealed a bill of exception.
    The defendant also offered to prove, “ that in 1831 Atkinson admitted that Graham owed him but about 30 dollars; and that since that time he has received of Graham money more than the balance he claims before and since this judgment.” This was objected to by the plaintiff, but the evidence was received, and the plaintiff excepted.
    
      Deford, for plaintiff in error.
    
      FLustin, for defendant in error.
   Per Curiam.

The evidence in derogation of the plaintiff’s character, which was not put in issue by the pleadings, ought not to have been received. The plaintiff’s declarations also, in regard to the state of the accounts, previous to the date of the note, were inadmissible; but so much of the evidence as went to show a receipt of the defendant’s money since was proper.

Judgment reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.  