
    SPIVA vs. STAPLETON.
    [ACTION TO RECOVER OVERSEER’S WAGES.]
    1.- Opinion of toitness as expert — In an action to recover stipulated wages as an overseer, the question being whether plaintiff performed his duty as an overseer, a witness who frequently saw the defendant’s plantation while the plaintiff was in charge of it, and who is shown to have been an overseer for live or six years, may state that, in bis opinion, plaintiff “managed pretty well.”
    2. Proof of negligence by overseer. — Defendant having adduced evidence' showing that, during the year plaintiff was acting as overseer on his plantation, the supply of corn on the place 'was all consumed by June, he cannot be allowed to provo 'that, during the next year, under a different overseer, the number of persons, stock, &c., being the same as in the preceding year, the same quantify of corn lasted until September.
    3. Evidence rebutting proof of negligence. — In such case, proof of the bad quality of the corn on the place when plaintiff took charge of it; would bo competent evidence for him, in rebuttal; but proof of the bad quality of the corn raised in the neighborhood, unaccompanied with proof of any general cause affecting the crops of that neighborhood, or with evidence showing that; in quality of soil and mode of cultivation, defendant’s plantation corresponded with the lands in the neighborhood generally, is too remote and uncertain*to-go to the jury for that purpose.
    Appeal from tbe Circuit Court of Wilcox-
    Tried before the Son. Nat. Cook.
    This action was brought by John T. Stapleton, against' Edward A. Spiva, to' recover the sum of -$450, alleged to' be due from defendant to plaintiff “for services rendered ' as an overseer during the year 1857”; also, the same amount, •. as “the price agreed to be paid by defendant to plaintiff for acting as overseer of his hands and plantation for the year 1857”; also, the same amount, “due by account on tbe 1st day of January, 1858, for work, and labor done by plaintiff for defendant, at his request'; during-t'he year 1857.” ' “ The principal defense insisted on,” 'as the bill of exceptions states, “ was, that plaintiff had neglected his diity, and violated his contract, and had been discharged by de- - fendant, for good cause, in August, 1857.” The matters-’ here assigned as error are the several rulings of the court-below on the evidence, which are thus stated in the dé-fendant’s bill of exceptions:
    “ In proving performance on his part, plaintiff introduced a witness, who bad been an overseer for five or six years, and who testified, that he understood the business of an overseer, and that he -frequently saw the defendant’s plantation; and, in answer to a question by plaintiff, .-said, T think he (plaintiff) managed pretty well? The-defendant objected to this answer, as illegal and incompetent, and insisted, that the witness should state .facts, and let the jury determine whether the plaintiff managed well, or not, and moved to exclude said answer from the jury; but the court overruled'his objection-and motion, and tbe defendant excepted.
    “ There was proof tending to show that, when plaintiff went on defendant’s plantation, there were some fifteen or sixteen hundred bushels of corn on the place; hut there was a conflict of proof as to the quantity ; and that one thousand bushels of, corn was enough to do the place from January to September, when new corn would come in; but there was a conflict'™ the evidence, also, as to whether the corn on the place when the plaintiff went there was sufficient. There was proof, also, tending to show 'that the corn was out in Jane, and that defendant had to buy corn for his plantation in Mobile- in ,June. It was sho.wn that, when the plaintiff went on the place, the corn on it was in a crib and two rail pens, and that said crib and pens were then full. The number of white persons, negroes, mules, and other stock on the place, to be fed out of said corn in 1857, was also shown. Defendant offered .to show that, in 1858, under another overseer, and .with about the same number of persons, mules, stock, &c„ the same crib held the corn fed to them during the. year, and lasted until September; and that they were well fed,.and had plenty. The court ruled out-this evidence, .on the plaintiff’s objection ; and the defendant excepted. Plaintiff introduced proof, also, showing that tbe bulk of corn, when put up in tbe shuck, as this was in 1857, was very deceptive, and that the actual quantity of corn — (?) On this point,plaintiff .asked a witness, what was the quality of corn -raised in cthe neighborhood of defendant’s plantation in 1856; to vwhich question the defendant objected, as illegal and incompetent; but the court overruled his objection, 'and he excepted.”'
    Alex. & Jno. White, for appellant.
    Byrd & Morgan, contra.
    
   R. W. WALKER, J.

Constraing the bill of exceptions most strongly against the appellant, we understand the statement, that the.witness “saw the plantation frequently,’* to refer to the period when the plaintiff had charge of it. Placing this construction upon' the bill.of exceptions,-the court did not err, in permitting the witness, who was shown to be an expert, to give his opinion that the plaintiff “ managed pretty well.” — City Council v. Gilmer, 33 Ala. 133; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 440; McCreary v. Turk, 29 Ala. 244.

The evidence that, in 1858, the same crib full of corn lasted the same-number of persons, mules, stock, &c.?. until the month of September, • was properly excluded. The value of such -testimony as a basis for the presumption of carelessness or-wastefulness on the part of the plaintiff, would depend on ■ a number of collateral circumstances ; such, for example, as the extent áíid condition of the pastures on the place itf -each year, the amount of-other descriptions of forage used, the quality of the corn, &c., &'c. An inquiry into these • various matters would have led to an indefinite multiplication of the issues; and for this-reason, if no other, the evidence was properly rejected.

Proof of the' bad- quality of the com on the place' when the plaintiff took charge, would have been competent evidence for him; and the testimony showing the quality of corn raised in the neighborhood in 1856, was doubtless offered with this view. For the purpose of rais-ing the presumption, That the corn on the place when the plaintiff took charge was of bad quality, it is possible that testimony showing that the corn raised in 1856, in the neigborhood of said plantation, on lands of the same description and similarly cultivated, was generally of bad quality, would have been admissible. — Steele & Burgess v. Townsend, 37 Ala. 247 ; Johnson v. Lightsey, 34 Ala. 173. But the testimony admitted was, in general terms, that the quality of corn raised in the neighborhood of the plantation in 1856, was bad ; and this, we think, was too remote and uncertain to go to the jury, unaccompanied, as it was, by proof of any general cause affecting the crops of that neighborhood, or that, in- respect of quality of soil and mode, of cultivation, this particular plantation corresponded with the generality of the lands in the neighborhood, 1 Greenl. Ev. § 52; Gilmer v. City Council, 26 Ala. 669.

Judgment-reversed, and cause remanded.  