
    WILLIAMS vs. LANIER.
    WESTERN DIST.
    
      October, 1839.
    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, FOR THE PARISH’ OF RAPIDES, THE JUDGE OF THE FIFTH PRESIDING.
    In a case involving facts only; and there being no positive evidence of the facts as alleged, this court refused to disturb a verdict in the negative.
    This is an action in which the plaintiff alleges, that the defendant killed four of his mules, worth one hundred and fifty dollars each, and claims the sum of six hundred dollars as compensation for their value.
    The defendant pleaded a general denial, and averred that the allegations in the petition were false.
    The evidence showed, that the plaintiff and defendant’s plantations joined, and that the mules and stock of the plaintiff were in the habit of breaking into the cornfield of the defendant, and committed such devastation, that he was frequently heard to exclaim that they would eat him up. About this period two of the plaintiff’s mules were found dead in the defendant’s field, caused by buck shot; and the other two shot in the same manner outside of the enclosure. There was, however, no positive evidence that the defendant either killed them himself or caused them to be killed. He was generally esteemed as a neighbor and good citizen. No previous quarrel had occurred, and the plaintiff had charged his overseer to keep his stock from molesting the defendant.
    The cause was submitted to a jury, who, from the evidence before them, returned a verdict for the defendant, and from judgment rendered thereon the plaintiff appealed.
    Dunbar, for the plaintiff,
    contended, that the evidence fully warranted the jury in giving the amount of the plaintiff’s demand, as it proved or authorized the presumption that the defendant did kill the mules as alleged. He urged that this court should reverse the judgment, and give such a one as the evidence authorized, and assess the damages to which the plaintiff was entitled.
    
      
      JElgee, for the defendant,
    urged the affirmance of the verdict and judgment.
   Martin, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

. . , . The plaintiff is appellant from a judgment .which refuses him the value of four of his mules, which he alleges were killed by the defendant.

The general issue was pleaded ; and there was a verdict for the defendant.

The case presents no question of law, but turns entirely on that of fact. A close examination of the evidence, has left on us the impression that the verdict of the jury ought not to be disturbed.

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