
    The State vs. Erasmus Gunter.
    A question of credit between two witnesses, is to be left to the jury, and their finding will not be disturbed, notwithstanding it maybe contrary to the views of the presiding judge, expressed in his charge.
    See Infra, 494.
    Before Earle, J., Richland, Spring Term, 1836.
    This was an indictment for buying corn from a negro man slave, named Bob, belonging to the estate of David Myers.
    James Gray, the only witness produced on the part of the prosecution, proved the offence, substantially as laid in the indictment. He was living with the defendant as a hireling. Slept in the house, which contained only two rooms. The defendant occupied the inner or small room. Bob knocked at the window of the small room where defendant slept. Learning who was there, defendant directed Gray, who slept in the outer room, to open the door. Defendant went out. Bob brought about four bushels of com, which they (defendant and Bob,) carried to the barn, and on their return defendant paid him for the corn, in meat, tobacco, and whiskey. It occurred an hour or two after dark. Afterwards, Bob brought about two bushels *of corn, a little before day, and the defendant bought it, and paid for it in the same way. The negro made himself known as before, by knocking at the window, and the defendant went out to the door and received the corn, paying for it after they returned from the barn; a night or two only_after the former time.
    The witness admitted that he had quarelled with defendant, who refused to pay him his wages, and on that account he had got mad, and parted with him. On the part of the defendant, Elizabeth Gray, (sister of the former witness,) deposed, that she lived with defendant all the time Janies did. She occupied the inner room, where defendant slept, and she deposed that no such dealing or transaction ever took place within her knowledge ; and if it did occur at all, it would seem she must have known it.
    Other witnesses were called to the character of Gray, both to discredit him and sustain him. Several deposed that they would not believe him, while others knew no cause why they should not; and would believe him. Dr. Briggs, who seems to have known him best, gave him such a character as should have overthrown his testimony altogether, according to the opinion of the presiding Judge, but the jury thought otherwise, and found the defendant guilty.
    It was a question of credit between two witnesses ; on the one hand, one of whom had quarrelled with the defendant, and the other was his paramour ; on the other, between a witness whose character was proved to be bad, and a defendant whose character ivas not proved to be good.
    Appeal determined at Columbia, Fall Term, 1836.
    
      Be Saussure for the motion. Elmore, Solicitor, contra.
   Curia, per

Evans, J.

This was one of that class of cases which a jury are more competent to decide than this Court. The evidence was contradictory, and the question was, whom the jury should believe. They have decided, and I do not perceive any such palpable error, as should induce this Court to interfere. The motion is refused.

Butler, Earle and Richardson, JJ., concurred.  