We think the question here is purely one of payment, of which defendant seems to have made out a prima facie case. Plaintiff, however, seems to contend that at the time when payment was required there were more than one kind of rouble and that, it was contemplated by the parties that the judgment should payable in this particular kind. Of this there is no evidence before the Court, but such evidence would seem to be admissible within the rule fixed by the Supreme Court' and we are not disposed to reject it, even at this late stage of the proceedings. We merely hold that on the face: of the record defendant appears to have made payment im accordance with the terms of the judgment and that if the roubles deposited are not those contemplated it is for the defendant so to prove.
The motion for execution is accordingly overruled.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.