
    Eugene McCarthy v. John L. Lewis, Sheriff.
    Where the sheriff without any legal order of commitment imprisons a slave, and the death of the slave ensues in consequence of the imprisonment, the sheriff is liable for the value of the slave. But where the death is not attributable to the imprisonment, the sheriff is not liable for the slave. He may, however, be held accountable for the value of the slave’s services during the detention.
    APPEAL by plaintiff from the Fourth District Court of Now Orleans, Strawbridge, J.
    The judge of the district court gave the following judgment for the defendant: “ The plaintiff claims the value of a slave who was received in the parish prison, and after a detention of ten days without any commitment was taken ill, and shortly after being delivered to her owner died of the malady which attacked her in prison. Two physicians, examined on the opposite side, differ as to the character of the malady, and I feel incompetent to decide between them; but it is proved that the attack took place on the night of the 17th of September, and she was delivered to her owner on the morning of the 19th, and that during her illness in the prison she was well attended, and that her treatment in common with the other prisoners had during her confinement been good. She had been received into the prison without a commitment, and evidently under a mistake of the police officers. The responsibility of defendant is claimed under art. 2294, C. C., often quoted: “every act of man which occasions damage to another, obliges him by whoso fault it happened to repair it.”
    Did this damage arise from the receipt and detention of the slave ? AVould the result have been different had she been received under a commitment, or would have been different had she been committed to the police jail, where it was proper she should have been sent? This is more than the proof enables me to say. If the slave had been received under a formal commitment, but lost her life in consequence of neglect or ill treatment, the regularity of the commitment would clearly have been no excuse for the defendant. If illegally held nd detained by the sheriff, her wages and expenses as a consequence would be clearly recoverable as a direct consequence of the illegal act.
    If in time of cholera or yellow fever a prisoner improperly committed should die of these diseases, would that be the consequence of the detention in prison ? If these diseases prevailed in the prison to a greater degree than elsewhere, perhaps this might be inferred; but if a prisoner died of consumption or apoplexy, it would be difficult to show that,under a detention of ten days, under no extraordinary treatment, the consequences were attributable or consequential on an unlawful commitment. It is therefore ordered that judgment be entered for defondant with costs.”
    
      C. Dufour, for appellant. J. R. Grymes, for appellee.
   The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Slidell, J.

The reasons given by the district judge for refusing to hold the defendant liable for the value of the slave are satisfactory.

As to the question of wages it may be that the defendant became answerable for them; but we deem it unnecessary to express an opinion on this point. For if we thought they ought to have been allowed in the court below, the amount would be so small, say not more at the utmost than seven or eight dollars, that according to our uniform practice we would decline reversing the judgment on that ground.

Judgment .affirmed, with costs.  