
    Stephen Phillips against Susannah M‘Dowall. The same against The same.
    T.™ separate actions on two whfchwéregiven for a negro, and the defence was Being tiledby verdicts were on th^ather for'1the Sweareesm1d¿ Though*7from1 tífé evidence, the havert ^disturbed whichsoever^ they had been, if betS aince; as both could not be right, they granted a new trial,that both cases might be submit-fed to one jury.
    These were actions of assumpsit on two notes A of hand, payable at different times, for the pur- , i rm -, r* chase money oí a neuro boy. 1 he detence set up in both cases was unsoundness, of which he afterwards died, by which the consideration had entirely failed. The two cases were tried at different times, and before different juries. In the first case a verdict was found for the plain- . . A tub and m the second for the defendant. The unsuccessful party in both cases moved for a . t A J tria*’ on ground that the verdict was i . ¶ i • t contrary to law and evidence. ' *
   qc^e 0pinj0n Gf the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Nott.

It is unnecessary to recapitulate all the testimony given in these cases. It is sufficient to say, it was of that' equivocal character which is most usually given in cases of this description. They appear to have been cases proper for the consideration of a Jury; and if there had been hut one action, or if the verdicts had both been one way, it is probable this Court would not have disturbed them, on which ever side they might have been given. But as they both depended on the same evidence, they cannot both be right. Let a new trial therefore be granted in both cases, that both together may be submitted to the investigation of another Jury.

Colcock, Cheves, Gantt, and Johnson, J. concurred- -  