¶1 The only reason offered for a new trial is, because the judge refused to admit in evidence, a settlement of the taxes which the plaintiff had made, with the accounting officers of the county, since the suit was commenced ; and, when the defendant was not present, or a party to that settlement. The counsel for the plaintiff has cited several authorities, none of which, in my opinion, bear him out in the position he has taken— As against himself, it is fair to presume every man’s words and actions correspond with the truth ; it is his own fault if they do not — but it would be in the highest degree, rasli and unjust, to found such a presumption, generally, upon the acts, conduct or declarations of strangers, without any authority from the party whom they affect; as to him, they are res inter alios acta. (1 Stark. 51. 3 Stark. 1300.) I cannot perceive how the admission of the plaintiff in his settlement, that he was largely indebted to the county, would warrant an inference that the defendant had not paid him the monies, which ho had "received as the agent of the plaintiff, or was otherwise indebted to him. I think, the evidence was properly rejected by the court. The judgment therefore must be affirmed.
¶2 Per Curiam — Judgment aeeirmed.