
    BERNARD vs. PYBURN.
    Eastern Dist.
    
      March, 1840.
    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, FOR THE PARISH «OF EAST BATON ROUGE, THE JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT PRESIDING.
    The verdict c^the jury in two trials, on mere questions of fact, when not ^ r¡fg j pj[ ■ clearly erroneous, will not be disturbed.
    1¶, X^ejilaintiff charged the defendant’s slave with killing one” oí'*his slaves, worth fifteen hundred dollars, at the in•stance-'óf his master, and for which he is liable for his value, and damages for other losses sustained thereby.
    Xhe defendant denied all the allegations except the killing, which he averred was occasioned by the illegal and felonious conduct of said slave whilst committing a feloneous act in killing his (defendant’s) hogs. He denies that he is liable in any way; and that no amicable demand was ever made.
    On these issues the cause was submitted to trial before the court and a jury. There was much testimony taken ; upon which the jury were unable to agree the first trial, and at the two last, there were verdicts for the defendant. From judgment on the last one the plaintiff appealed.
    
      
      R. N. and A. N. Ogden, for the plaintiff.
    
      Elam, contra.
   Simon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit was instituted by the plaintiff to recover of the defendant the value of a negro, alleged to have been shot and killed by one of defendant’s slaves, through the order of his master, and in consequence of his malice, negligence or imprudence.

The defendant pleaded the general issue; that the death of plaintiff’s negro was occasioned solely by his own illegal and felonious conduct, and whilst in the perpetration of a felonious act in the killing of defendant’s hogs, at ten o’clock at night; and that the killing of plaintiff’s negro was merely accidental and without any malicious intention on the part of defendant, or his slave.

This case was tried three times in the District Court; there was a mis-trial; two verdicts were found by the jury in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

The whole matter in issue being that of fact onfy left to the jury, who, twice in succession, the evidence fully exonerated the defendant fror alleged against him. We have carefully evidence in the record, and we are not able to verdicts of the jury are so clearly erroneous as td interference of this court.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that thlT judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs.  