
    Lowry, Executor of Miller, against Hugh M'Burney.
    Charleston,
    June, 1817.
    Where a person sells a negro as a tradesman, and of orderly conduct, he is not to he considered as warranting the future conduct — > only his ability and character up to the time of the sale.
    Debt on bond; verdict for plaintiff; motion for new trial. The bond was given for a negro carpenter, and was conditioned for payment of 1007 dollars.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Bay, at Jacksonborough, in May Term, 1812. ‘Defence, that this negro did not answer the description given of him at the time of sale. This was a case which turned upon the evidence offered on the trial. From this evidence it appeared that this negro had been the property of a Mr. Croft, of St. Thomas’s parish, and that, when young, had been put out as. an apprentice for three years to learn the trade of a carpenter; that after his term had expired, he had misbehaved, and was sold by Mr. Croft to Mr. Fielding, of John’s Island, who after-wards sold him to Mr. Miller, a carpenter, in whose employ he remained till the day of Miller’s death.; that for several years he had behaved very well both to Mr. Fielding and Mr. Miller, and was constantly employed at his trade during that time; that after Miller’s death he was advertised and sold by his executor, Mr. Lowry; at the sale he was represented as a good plantation carpenter, and was purchased by Dr. M'-Bumey, for the above sum of 1007 dollars; that the defendant, after the sale, was at a loss for security to comply with the terms of sale; upon which a gentleman in the neighbourhood offered to take the bargain off his hands, and comply with the terms; but defendant refused his offer. Another witness proved that, in his opinion, he was well worth the money, and that Mr. Miller, his former master, got the same wages for him as for his white journeymen, and that he would willingly have given the sum he was bid off at, if he could have complied with the terms of sale. And a third witness proved he had always behaved well with Mr. Miller, and had never run away or misbehaved while he belonged to Miller.
    For defendant one or two witnesses swore that after Dr. MBurney took him to Jacksonborough, he turned out a drunkard, a runaway; and that he was not a good workman; and that he had there been concerned in breaking open a poultry house. On the part of the defendant, it was contended that there ought to be either a recision of the contract, or an abatement in the price, proportioned to the deterioration of his value by his subsequent misconduct. In reply, it was urged by plaintiff that no man could warrant the future conduct of a negro after a sale. All that could be expected was a fair and candid reprer sentation up to the time of sale. That a negro, with proper treatment and good management, might behave very well to one man, while on the contrary he might behave very much amiss to another master. A difference of treatment, bad company, and the temptations of a village where drunkenness and intoxication prevail, and vicious habits are predominant, might seduce even the best of slaves to go astray.
    Hayne, for the motion.
    J. B. White and O'Driscoll, contra.
   Bay, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

As this was a case which turned entirely upon evidence, and as there was evidence on both sides, I left the case to the Jury, as being a case very proper for their consideration; and they found for the plaintiff the full amount of his bond and interest. After hearing the arguments' on this motion for a new trial, I can see no grounds for impeaching the verdict of the Jury, and am therefore clearly of opinion the motion should be refused ; in which opinion all my brethren coincide.  