MORETON v. HARRISON.—1 BLAND. 473

It appears, that more than thirty-two years have elapsed since
the last payment before this suit was instituted. This great lapse
of time affords ample ground for the presumption of satisfaction
upon which the defendant relies; and if not explained or repelled
must be admitted to be a complete bar to the plaintiffs' claim.
Lapse of time operates as a bar, because of its raising a presump-
tion either, that the claim never existed, or if it had once existed,
that it has been satisfied. It cannot however be presumed, that
this claim never existed, because that is expressly admitted by the
defendant himself; consequently this lapse of time can only be
insisted on so far as it affords a presumption of satisfaction. The
defendant avails himself of it in like manner as he might have
done of positive proof of payment. He adduces and relies upon
it as evidence to sustain an allegation of payment. Pow. Mort.
361, note, 1153, 1155; Chalmer v. Bradley, 1 Jac. & Walk. 03;
Christophers v. Sparke, 2 Jac. & Walk. 233.

But the defendant does not frankly and directly declare, that he
had actually paid the whole amount of the purchase money. After
expressly admitting the contract, he then says, he does not admit,
that he has obtained all the credits he ought to have; he denies
that he admitted to any one, that any part of the purchase money
was due, or that he promised to pay it; aad he does not admit,
that any part of the purchase money is due from him. All this,
according to the letter, may be true, and yet the defendant may
well know in his conscience, that he has not paid the whole pur-
chase money. If he knew he had actually paid it, why not ex-
pressly say so, instead of saying he did not admit that any part
of it was due from him? Perhaps, by a sort of mental reserva-
tion he meant to say, he did not admit it was due, not because he
could, with a clear conscience, say he had, in reality, paid it; but,
being authorized to rely upon the presumption arising from the
lapse of time, he therefore did not admit it was due from him.
This is certainly a very stale claim: but its being so ought not
to be received as an apology for the slightest departure from that
frankness which the Court always expects from a defendant when
* called on to speak of matters within his own knowledge.
But although this very guarded language of the defendant 502
does look a little suspicious, yet it must be admitted, since no ex-
ception has been taken to his answer, that he has said enough
to entitle him to rely upon the presumption of satisfaction.

The witness Lewis Button says, that the defendant admitted to
him early in the year 1S20, that he had not then paid the whole
amount of the purchase money. This testimony positively con-
tradicts one of the defendant's allegations, and diminishes the
extent of the presumption relied on by him: it is calculated to
shake our faith in his answer. Still, the claim is a stale one; and