In this case there is no plea that the consideration of the contract was illegal, neither is there any proof that the plaintiff knew of the illegal purpose to which the money loaned by him, was to be applied. That defence, therefore, fails.

The question of evidence is the same decided in Isenhour v. Isenhour, ante, 640. The excluded witness was competent.

There was error in the proceedings below.

Pee Curiam:. Venire de novo.