
    Solomon Owens, vs. Jesse Ford.
    d? slave was sold, who had before committed burglary; the fact being unknown, both to seller and purchaser, • After the sale, he was convicted, and his ears cropped. Held that the implied warranty did not extend to the loss of value thereby occasioned-.
    
    The defendant set up, by way of discount, that the note on which the action Was founded, was given for a negro: that the negro before the sale had Committed a burglary, for which he was afterwards tried, convicted, and punished; by reason of which punishment, his ears being cropped, his value was greatly impaired. The fact of the commission of the offence was un-ksbwn to both parties at the time of the sale.
    His honor charged the jury that the implied warranty did-not extend to such case; and the jury found a verdict for the plains tiff, fo,r the whole amount of the note. The defendant now moves for a new trial, because his honor erred in so charging the jul7-
   The ' opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr, - Justice Richardson.

In the case of Richard Smith, vs. M'Call, (1 M'Cord, 220) this court has decided that there is no implied warranty of the moral qualities of a slave, arising from the mere Sale and price paid; and that case appears to mé to decide the one before us. For, if there is no-warranty implied, against the vices of* the slave, it would be inconsistent that théré should he nevertheless, a' warranty against the consequences of such vices. If such a distinction wére allowed, that- casé' would be frittered away; because then, every case of.that cla^webjd'be xnade tq '*■ depend upon the .contingency whether some evil had not followed from his vices, though there was no warranty against the vicé itself. A door too, would-he open to frequent frauds, if an injury to the slave, brought about by a convection, were to be the test; in as much as such convictions might be readily had or procured. This decision, however, it will he perceived, does not touch the case where the seller knowing the crime of this slave, yet conceals it from the purchaser.

The motion is refused.

Huger, Johnson, Mott, Colcock', Justices, concurred.  