
    Thomas Kile, plaintiff in error, vs. John G. Johnson, defendant in error.
    (Atlanta,
    January Term, 1873.)
    1. Confederate Contract — Stamp—Evidence.—Where a note for $1,488 00 was made in 1864, and after the conclusion of the late war, was stamped with a five cent revenue stamp, the holder estimating it as worth $100 00, it was properly admitted in evidence. (R.)
    2. Same — Evidence.—Under these circumstances, it was not error to admit evidence under which the plaintiff might recover more than $100 00 on the note. (R.)
    3. Same — Province of Jury — New Trial. — This being a Confederate contract, it was the province of the jury to adjust the equities between the parties under the evidence in the case, which being fairly done under the law applicable to such contracts, this Court will not interfere. (R.)
    Stamps. Evidence. New trial. Ordinance óf 1865. Before Judge Hopicins. Fulton Superior Court. April Term, 1872.
    Johnson brought complaint against Kile on an account for twenty boxes of tobacco, weighing twenty-one hundred pounds, alleged to be worth $3,150 00, with interest from June 12th, 1864, and on a ’due bill for $1,488 00, dated June 15th, 1864. The record fails to disclose the plea of defendant.
    The following evidence was introduced on the trial:
    John G. Johnson, the plaintiff, sworn: The debt, the subject matter of this suit, has been regularly given in for taxes, and the taxes on it paid, except for the year 1865, and no taxes were required to be paid for that year. Plaintiff only placed a five cent revenue stamp oh the note, as he did not regard it as worth more than $100 00. In 1864, sold to defendant twenty boxes of tobacco for $6,000 00 in Confederate *money. Defendant paid him between $1,800 00 and $2,000 00, in Confederate Treasury, notes, and turned over as collateral security, twenty-eight seven-thirty notes or bonds, to secure the payment of $2,800 00, and gave his note for the remainder of the purchase money, $1,400 00. The reason plaintiff would not receive the notes or bonds as payment, was because he wanted the "new issue,” and these notes or bonds were only worth sixty-six and two-thirds cents in the dollar, and had to be funded in four per cent, certificates by a given time, or depreciate one-third in value. Besides, defendant told plaintiff he wished to get them back, as they were interest bearing notes. The tobacco, since the war, would have been worth from seventy-five cents to one dollar per pound. Tendered these notes back just before this suit was commenced.
    The due bill sued on was placed in evidence, having on it a five cent revenue stamp.
    Thomas Kile, the defendant, testified as follows: In 1864,
    bought of plaintiff two boxes of tobacco, and paid him about $4,800 00 in Confederate money, and gave his (defendant’s) note for the balance. The seven-thirty notes were not given as collateral security, but were delivered in part payment. These notes were worth as much as the new issue, and the only effect the Funding Act had, was to make them worth a premium. Might have said to the plaintiff at the tim.e he paid them to him, that he . would give him new issue- for them when he got it, or that he wanted to keep them because they were interest bearing notes. This was a Confederate transaction, and at the time $1 00 in gold was worth from $19 00 to $20 00 in Confederate money.
    Four witnesses testified that the seven-thirty notes or bonds-were not included in the Act requiring what was known as the old issue, to be funded within a specified time. At all times these notes were at par, and worth fully as much as the new issue. '
    Barber’s tables were, by consent, considered in evidence, by which from June 1st, to July 15th, 1864, $1 00 in gold was worth $18 00 in Confederate money.
    *The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $258 00 principal, and $139 55 interest.
    The defendant moved for a new trial upon the following grounds:
    . 1st. Because the Court erred in admitting in evidence the note, having but a five cent revenue stamp thereon, the defendant objecting thereto.
    2d. Because the Court erred in admitting, over the objection of defendant’s counsel, evidence which would-authorize the jury to find more than $100 00 as due on the note.
    3d. Because the verdict was contrary to the evidence.
    The motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted upon each of the grounds aforesaid.
    M. J. Ivey ; L. J. Winn, for plaintiff in error.
    E. N. Broyles, for defendant.
    
      
      Stamps — Estimate of Value. — See Ency. Dig. Ga. Rep., vol. 2, p. 371.
      Act of Congress — Authority to Prescribe Rules of Evidence. — See the principal case cited in Small v. Slocumb, 112 Ga. 287, 37 S. E. Rep. 481. Notes to Hoops v. Atkins, 41 Ga. 110; Green v. Dowry, 38 Ga. 548.
    
    
      
      Province of Jury — New Trial. — The principal case is cited and the ruling in the 3d headnote approved in Conyers v. Commissioners, 116 Ga. 106, 42 S. E. Rep. 419. Cited also, in notes to Green v. Jones, 28 Ga. 347; Field v. Leak, 36 Ga. 362; Slaughter v. Culpepper, 35 Ga. 27. ■ •
    
   Warner, Chief Justice.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, to recover the value of a note given by the defendant to the plaintiff for tobacco, dated 12th June, 1864, and also containing a count in the declaration for the value of the tobacco.

'On the trial pf the case, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. A motion was made for a new trial on the several grounds set forth in the record, which was overruled, and the defendant excepted. There was no error in admitting the note in evidence to the jury. It had a revenue stamp on it, as required by the United States revenue law, for the value at which the plaintiff estimated it to be worth. There was no error in admitting evidence going to show that the plaintiff was entitled to recover for the note and the tobacco more than $100 00. It is true that the plaintiff stated that he valued the note at $100 00 when he put a revenue stamp on it, but that was a circumstance to be considered by the jury in connection with the other evidence in the case. It was not conclusive as to his right to recover more than that amount. *This was a Confederate contract, and it was the province of the jury to adjust the equities between the parties under the evidence in the case, which, in our judgment, they have fairly done under the law applicable to such contracts. Whether the seven-thirty notes or bonds were received by the plaintiff in payment of the tobacco, or only as collateral security, the evidence is conflicting. The jury, however, thought proper to believe the plaintiff instead of the defendant, as it was their privilege to do.

Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.  