
    T. J. Ivy v. H. Wilson.
    The defendant’s steamboat being about to run foul of. that of the plaintiff, a slave of the latter was mortally injured in an attempt to prevent the collision. Some showing was made by the defendant, that the negro had wantonly exposed himself to the danger ; but the jury were instructed that such a presumption ought not to be admitted in the case of a slave protecting his owner’s property, without clear proof.
    Before O’Neall, J., at Charleston, January Term, 1840.
    This was an action by the Captain of the steamer Dudley, against the Captain of the steamer Neptune, for a mortal injury to the plaintiff’s slave, occasioned by the collision of the two boats. The Neptune, in coming in to her accustomed landing, fell foul of the other vessel, which was moored to a wharf immediately below. Whether this accident was a natural and unavoidable causalty, or the result of negligence or want of skill, was the subject of much conflicting and very contradictory professional opinion.
    When the Neptune was within a hundred yards of the Dudley, the plaintiff ordered up all hands to assist in bearing her off and preventing the collision. Among them was the plaintiff’s slave, George, described as a bold, ambitious, adventurous fellow, who got on the guard of the boat, outside of the bulwarks, and, though warned to avoid danger, remained in that position till one of his legs was caught and crushed between the two vessels. In consequence of this injury, he soon afterwards died. Capt. Marshall, the pilot of the Dudley, testified that George’s position was a proper one to prevent the collision, but was one of great danger, and that, in assuming it he violated one of the first laws of nature, self-preservation : but, examined in reply, he said that that was what every sailor - did in discharge of .the perilous duties of his vocation. The slave was worth from one thousand to twelve hundred dollars.
    The jury were instructed that, to make the defendant liable, the collision must have resulted from his intention, his want of skill, or his negligence in navigating his vessel. Nor would he be liable if the negro had exposed himself to the danger unnecessarily; but the Court said,, if they believed that the negro’s position was taken to protect the owner’s property (the boat) from injury, that they ought not to presume that he wantonly exposed himself to unnecessary danger. That conclusion ought to be plainly established by proof before they adopted it.
    See 5 Rich. 26; 2 McM. 403. An.
    
    Verdict for the plaintiff, seven hundred and fifty dollars.
    The defendant appealed on the ground that the verdict was against evidence; and,
    That his Honor erred in charging that the negro ought to be presumed not to have wantonly exposed himself.
    
      Teadon and Macbeth, for the motion;
    
      Meminger and Jervey, contra.
   Curia, per O’Neall, J.

We think the instructions given to the jury, by the judge below, were proper.

The jury had evidence upon which they might conclude the defendant was guilty of negligence 1 if so, the verdict is right.  