apartment to talk the matter' over an °tb« hree consultations on this question r ' Jhej they agreed that defendant shn,,i > "H acknowledgement of his liability tl \ £ lv « an this balance and that plaintiff s h o , ysm ft, value in goods. e "it til M. Sandstein deposed that he ], n ,iM the settlement of the debt >«ia defoudant. Plaintiff wished him to I P St*, whether he would take the Ld^ lrf *C plaintiff owed him. Defendl „■ °, v «* fa want it, but he thought R/T' ° *' there would be a balance due on it \ llc Si of£lo6 from defendant to p\« tr T >! nessj objected to this. HeunW, , Ite Kit. conveyance of the land was Z £ °°' l ""' t Jj debts to defendant, S££»*£ tiff to any balance. On statin, plaintiff, the latter said ho did 1 Jcotio Mo fendantto pay this balance buV i pCct *>• into the deed because ho did 'not l!„°, 7 l '< Put to understand allabout his a£ "f, l^ the balance m goods, he (witn„ t ,\ , " Sav a receipt for the goods; so could havo no further claim for tho 1,1 pm § Defendant admitted what had 1' last witness about the debt of S!!?H and the bills ho held, and hifa£' h the property in payment. He did ZlvV iki property was worth £ll9l, bu 7'"J* 4. plaintiff to him was worth less thin i el " f i When plaintiff joined him the p " 7 '"Wy. plaintiff said ho wanted to | M I. m "M another deed could bo engross d „w, n 1,of " defendant) would execute ß^™ 2* ** (plaintiff) would give him a^^' 1 * balance, which he did, and defend™/? ,r "« deed. Afterwards, on the same II"!^ 1 th ' asked him to endorse a bill for £BO fr iif and plaintiff said he would serve 'him f""' l ' considered that his refusal to endow IS ? e induced plaintiff to bring this action hi Judgment for defendant. The same v, tub SAUE.-ClaimoOio - Plamtffsaid that defendant ha M c,E: ! ' nership debts, of which his share was fon - m ■ fendan , which cost £lO, and°for wh i ?t{ **• had not paid him. 