¶1 The testimony of J". A. Spencer was properly excluded as the consideration for the note was not in issue.
¶2 Therefore, the applicability or nonapplicability of C. S., 1795, to the proffered testimony is not necessarily presented by the record. Its competency is urged under authority of Sutton v. Walters, 118 N. C., 495, 24 S. E., 357. Its incompetency is asserted under authority of Benedict v. Jones, 129 N. C., 475, 40 S. E., 223. The point is moot as the testimony was properly excluded on other grounds.
¶3 No error.