¶1 The only question, in this case, is upon the re jection of the evidence, offered on the part ot the plaintiff, to prove by his own oath,that the bond for sixty-one dollars and fifty eents, payable one day after date, and dated the 21st day of October, 18.52* had not been paid in whole or in part;.
¶2*272 His Honor rejected the evidence, upon what ground his Honor does not inform us, nor does the counsel for the defendant.
¶3 It is true, that when the bond was given, and until the Act of 1866, to improve the law of evidence, the defendant was an incompetent witness, on account of interest, but that statute abolished the law excluding witnesses on account of interest, and made parties as well as other interested witnesses competent to testily, leaving the jury to give such weight, to the testimony of such witnesses, as they believed it entitled to. Under the statute the testimony offered was competent, and there is error. This will be certified.
¶4 Pee Curiam. Venire de novo.