
    WILSON v. CALVERT, ADM’R.
    1. Confessions, or admissions, must be taken altogether, but the jury are not bound to give equal credence to every part of Hie statement. When the admission is not a whole, or entire thing, but consists of parts, the jury cannot capriciously reject the portion favorable to the party making it; though slight facts or circumstances would be sufficient to justify them in disregarding it.
    2. In such a case, the jury, and not the Court, is the proper judge of the credit to be given to the different parts of the admission.
    Error to the County Court of Mobile.
    Assumpsit by the defendant, against the plaintiff in error.
    The declaration contains the common counts. The defendant pleaded non-assumpsit, set off, and the statute of limitations.
    Upon the trial, it appears by a bill of exceptions, that the plaintiff proved a presentation, in 1841, of an account attached to the bill of exceptions, which is made out against the defendant, in fh-vor of Charles Hammond, which includes the amount of two other accounts against the defendant, in favor of Hogan & Hammond, and that the defendant, after looking over it, said, that it was correct, but that he had a larger demand against Hammond, plaintiff’s intestate. Defendant and Hammond were merchants in Mobile, and had mutual dealings. This being all the testimony, the defendant requested the Court to charge the jury, that under the testimony, they must find for the defendant; and further, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover nominal damages only. These charges the Court refused, and charged the jury, that if they believed the testimony of the witness, they must find for the plaintiff the amount of the account; to which the defendant excepted, and now assigns for error.
    Fox, for plaintiffin error.
    K. B. Sew all, contra,
    cited Greenl. Ev. 233; 17 Pick. 183; Ry. & M. 257 ; 1 Dali. 240, 392; Douglass, 757; 5 Ala. Rep. 20, 616; 2 Stew. 445; 4 S. & P. 52.
   ORMOND, J.

The established rule, as to confessions, or admissions, is, that they must be taken altogether, that which makes for the party, as well as that which makes against him. But the jury are not bound to give equal credence to every part of the statement; they may for sufficient reasons, give effect to one part of the admission, and reject the other. What facts, or circumstances, would authorize the jury to reject one part of the statement, and receive the other, is a question not raised upon the record. It may however be stated, that where the admission is not a whole, or entire thing, but as here, consists of parts, though the jury may reject the part, making for the party asserting it, such rejection cannot be capriciously made, though evidence of slight facts, or circumstances, would be sufficient to authorize the jury to refuse to give credence to a part of the statement. [Smith v. Hunt, 1 McCord, 449; Newman v. Bradley, 1 Dall. 240; Turner v. Child, 1 Dev. 133; Randle v. Blackburn, 5 Taunton, 245.]

The charges moved for, were properly rejected, as they propose to take from the jury, the right to judge of the credit to be given to the different parts of the admission, and for the same reason, the Court erred in the charge given, by which it assumed to charge upon the facts, and in effect directed the jury to reject all that part of the testimony, by which the defendant discharged himself.

Let the judgment be reversed and the cause remanded.  