
    Mary A. Perry, executrix, vs. James Gray.
    In an action on a promissory note, by the executor of the payee against the maker, it is incompetent for the defendant to prove that the general business habits of the plaintiff were careless and thoughtless, for the purpose of showing that the note was paid by the defendant and left in the payee’s hands.
    Contract by the executrix of the will of Calvin Perry, on six promissory notes dated at various times in the years 1858, 1861, 1862 and 1863, made by the defendant payable to the plaintiff’s testator or his order, five of them on demand and the sixth on one month’s time, for various sums from $40 to $150. Writ dated March 5,1869. The answer alleged that the defendant paid the notes. Trial in the superior court, before Brigham,, C. J., who allowed this bill of exceptions:
    “ The defendant produced five promissory notes, which were made payable to the testator, and dated, two of them in 1862, two in 1863 and one in 1864, subsequently to most of the notes sued upon. Evidence was also submitted to the jury, without objection, tending to show that the testator was an accurate and careful man in his business transactions, and was in the habit of collecting promptly what was due him ; also that the defendant was of abundant ability, and owned property, both real and personal, in the town where both parties dwelt. The defendant offered to prove that the general business habits of the plaintiff [defendant ?] were careless and thoughtless, for the purpose of showing the payment of these notes by him, and the leaving of them in the hands of the plaintiff’s testator; to which the plaintiff objected, and the evidence was excluded. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and to the ruling excluding this evidence the defendant excepted.”
    
      A. Cottrell, for the defendant, cited Baker v. Stonebraker, 36 Missouri, 338.
    
      J. Lathrop $ E. H. Abbot, (E. A. Jones with them,) for the plaintiff, cited Hilton v. Scarborough, 5 Gray, 422; Atwood v. Scott, 99 Mass. 177.
   By the Court.

The evidence which was excluded was not admissible. Exceptions overruled.  