J.,  itep-bther  of  plniiililT,  tu  Ket  the  bill  ducounted ;  that  J.  took  tin
awny,  and  returneil  wllli  321.  luu  than  the  amount  of  (he  bill,  the  <Uir
being  1/.  19s. :  and  It  iva*  held  not  sufHcicDt,  irithnut  proof  that  J.  wn

SlaintifT*  agent,  !□  cait  it  uti  plaintiff  to  prove  the  cunst'lerBtion  he  gar*
IT  th«  bill  (/>).  In  an  action  by  Ibe  indoraee  against  (he  acceptor  of  ■
bin  of  exchange,  it  is  competent  to  the  acceptor  to  alion  that  the  accept-
Bnc«  woa  (or  the  Hccammodatian  of  llie  plaintiir,  and  that  he  has  recdred
Oil  coniidcration  from  (lie  drawer,  and  that  it  «a«  agreed  that  the  bill,
when  due,  nhould  be  taken  up  by  (he  plnintiff(^).
In  on  action  by  the  indorsee  of  a  note  agnioBt  the  maker,  it  vai  nilol
(bat  ihc  defendant  iiliould  not  be  nllowed  to  go  into  evidence  to  show  that
the  oriBinal  conBiderHlioii  wai  illegal,  unless  he  could  likewise  show  that
the  plamtitf  was  a  party  lo  that  UTegality(r).  On  an  issue,  whether  con-
tideration  was  given  by  theplaindlT  for  a  note,  the  letters  of  the  platnlifl^
Bbowiog  that  he  was  prcned  for  money,  are  evidence  for  the  derendanl(s).
