
    HOOD vs. M‘CORKLE.
    APPEAR FROM THE COURT OF THE NINTH DISTRICT, FOR THE PARISH OF CARROLL, JUDGE DAVIS PRESIDING.
    Where a cause has been a second time submitted to a jury, and the verdict does not appear manifestly erroneous, it will not be disturbed.
    This is an action against the defendant, for killing the plaintiff’s slave Henry, and to recover his value, estimated at seventeen hundred dollars.
    This case was before the court at a former term, and remanded for a new trial: See 12 Louisiana Reports, 573.
    On the return of the cause, it was again tried by a jury. The evidence on the first trial was again read.
    W. Sutton, sworn, says he saw the boy, Henry, in the field with M‘Corkle’s hands with a butcher knife. Believes there was a quarrel between the boy, Henry, and some of M'Corlcle’s hands. M'Corkle was sent for in a hurry from the house. He came and told the negro (who was making off) to stop. The negro started to run, and about the time he reached the fence, he shot him; heard something said, but does not know what passed between the boy, Henry, and M'Corkle : Says the gun was loaded with small shot; he (witness) loaded the gun, and was forty or fifty yards from M'Corkle when he shot the negro. The cotton in the field was about as high as his head, and was open ; the negro was about twenty yards distant from M'Corkle, and he does not know whether he was on the fence or in the field, when shot. He says he saw him when he died. He did not go with M'Corkle in the field, but went directly after him. He saw the negro running up to the fence ; M£Corkle telling him to stop. The negro had the butcher knife in his hand, when shot.
    It appeared, also, in evidence, that M£Corlde was overseer for Chambliss, on whose plantation the negro was killed. That the negro had left the plaintiff’s plantation after twelve o’clock, when he had come in and weighed his cotton. Only a lane separated the two plantations. The negro had run away once before. He was found quarrelling with Chambliss’ slaves, and brandishing a butcher knife.
    Upon the whole evidence, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. From judgment rendered thereon, the plaintiff appealed.
    M‘Guire and Selby, for the plaintiff:
    This is an action by the owner of a slave, to recover the value thereof, the slave having been killed by the defendant, without any legal cause. Such killing could only be justified under particular circumstances, to be found in 1 Moreau’s Digest, page 108, section 32, and page 109, section 35 ; and there is no evidence on record, to show that the defendant had brought himself within the provisions of those statutes.
    
      Downs, for the defendant,
    submitted the case after a few explanatory remarks, relying on the evidence supporting the verdict of the jury.
   Simon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case w'as once before this court, and was remanded for a new trial: 12 Louisiana Reports, page 573. On the second trial before the District Court, additional evidence was adduced by the parties, and after a new investigation of all the facts and circumstances relative to the killing of the plaintiff’s slave, by the defendant, the jury came again to the same conclusion, and found a verdict in favor of the defendant; and after an unsuccessful attempt to obtain a new (rial, the plaintiff appealed.

We have carefully examined the evidence found in the record, and we are not ready to say, that the verdict of t.he jury is so manifestly erroneous, that it should not have our sanction ; and we think tire district judge did not err, in overruling the motion for a new trial.

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