
    Willis T. Matthews et al. vs. Sion B. Redwine.
    The court instructed the jury that they might, without positive evidence, infer that the horse levied on and sold, as the property of R.., was a plough horse; and if adapted to the plough, it was sufficient, without showing that he had been used as such. Held, that this instruction was correct, and the horse was not liable to be sold to satisfy the judgment.
    In error from the circuit court of La Fayette county; Hon. Hugh R. Miller, judge.
    This was a suit instituted in the circuit, court of La Fayette county, by S. B. Redwine against Matthews and Addington, to recover the value of a horse which had been sold by Matthews, as constable, under an execution issued on a judgment rendered in the justices’ court in favor of Addington against Redwine. The defendant in error, who was the plaintiff in-the court below, proved that at the time of the levy on the horse and sale by the officer, that he (Redwine) had no other horse but that one, and after the sale he hired a horse to plough and go to mill, and that he, R., cultivated corn and other things which required the use of the horse, as well as practised biology. That R. forbade the sale of the horse by the officer, because the law exempted him from execution, and received from the officer the overplus, after paying the debt for which the horse was sold. It was also in proof that a short time before the sale of the horse, R. offered to sell another horse, which he said he owned and which was a good plough horse, and this horse afterwards died; but the time he died is not known.
    The jury found a verdict for plaintiff; when the defendants prayed this writ of error.
    
      Howry and Hayes, for plaintiffs in, error.
    
      I F. Cushman, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice FisheR

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action in the circuit court of La Fayette county, by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error, to recover the value of a certain horse, which the defendant in error alleges was exempt by law from execution, and which was by the plaintiffs in error levied on and sold, by virtue of an execution against the defendant in error.

The evidence fully sustains the verdict of the jury, which was for the plaintiff below. The only question seriously urged is, that the evidence does not sufficiently show that the horse was a plough horse. The court instructed the jury that they might, without positive evidence, infer that the horse was a plough horse, and that if he was adapted to this business it was sufficient, without showing that he had been thus used.

These instructions are correct in principle, and are adapted to the evidence introduced on the trial.

Judgment affirmed.  