The instruction that the indorsement was prima facia evidence of the transfer of the note before due, was unquestionably correct, and the proof of payment to the payees was unavailing, unless the defendant could show that it was made before the transfer, or that the indorsement -was made after due, which he did not attempt.

It follows that the court did not err in rejecting the testimony. Neither was there any ground for granting a new trial.

The judgment is affirmed.