¶1 We think that the testimony of McAlister was some evidence, that the plaintiff took the bond for and in consideration of the surrender of the two judgments only. There is nothing in the ease to shew, that the jury understood the Judge, as directing them to disregard the other evidence given in the cause. Secondly, it is insisted for the plaintiff, that the Judge should have informed the jury, that if the excess in the bond arose from any mistake in calculating interest, adding up sums, or from any other cause, it would negative corruption, and then they should find for the plaintiff The answer to this is, that the plaintiff offered no evidence of any such mistakes, to call for such a charge, and such an instruction was not even asked. The plaintiff having taken the bond for the sum. mentioned in it, was prima facie evidence, that he knew what, he was about, and that he did it knowingly, and therefore corruptly.
¶2 Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.