This is a suit by the payee against the maker of a promissory hote, the defense to which is want of consideration.
The testimony is conflicting-, and we are not disposed to reverse the decision of the judge a quo, who had the witnesses before him and was doubtless controlled in adopting- his conclusion by the weight of the presumption in favor of a holder of a promissory note as to ownership ■and consideration.
Judgment affirmed.