JANEL v. ANDRADE.

amount due on the note, $250 gold. The fact that the appellant paid $1,000 on the note after maturity, and did not demand the surrender of the note, which, according to his evidence, would have been fuily paid, justifies the presumption that there was no agreement to reduce the amount due upon the note. It seems incredible that a man paying the full amount due by him upon a promissory note should not then and there demand the note itself. If it was due to the carelessness of the appellant, or because the alleged agreement was never made, it is not for the Court to say, but the presumption of law is that people conduct their business according to the rules of business, and where the evidence is conflicting and uncertain, the Court must determine from the acts of the parties, the probability or improbability of their statements. Had Andrade at that time demanded the note tendering the $1,000 gold, and refused to pay until the note wag-surrendered, it would have been what must have been expected of a business man aware of his rights and zealous to maintain them. As he did not, the Court must naturally presume that he himself did not believe that he was entitled to the surrender of the note. That he is not so entitled, is confirmed by the evidence of the witness, Meyers. Janel sent him several times to Andrade with a bill for $500 in May. Andrade answered that he would see Janel, but not stating that he owed nothing. Meyers was sent again in July to the appellant, when the appellant said that he had seen Janel but did not intend to pay the money because the company had mashed up the boiler that was left on the spot. The evidence of the appellant himself is that, when Meyers presented the bill, he did not say he would fix it up, but said, "it was wrong in Janel to tear up the house," that he told him he "did not know nothing." He admitted that he met Janel on the train in the month of August with Placides and told him that he could not pay him anything. It will be noted that he did not say he should not or wouldn't pay. Janel testified that he met the appellant the last of June or the first of July in Colon and asked him for the $500; that the appellant said, "I am a little embarrassed. We had some talk about the purchase of the boiler for $250. I wrote him a letter about

1908.

119