
    NAPIER et al. vs. BARRY.
    1. In trover for the conversion of a slave, a witness who, as agent of plaintiff, brought the slave to this State, is competent to prove his own agency ; and although his testimony also tends to show that the slave was sold under attachment against himself, sued out by defendant, this does not render him incompetent, if there is no evidence showing that he consented to the levy or sale.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Franklin.
    Tried before the Hon. John E. Moore.
    Trover for the conversion of a slave, by William T. Barry ■against John S. Napier and John Weatherford. On the trial, the plaintiff offered in. evidence the deposition of a witness, who testified, that he, as agent of plaintiff, brought the slave from Mississippi to Lawrence County, Alabama; and his testimony tended to prove, also, that the slave was sold under attachment against himself, sued out by the defendants. The defendants objected to the reading of this deposition, but their objection was overruled; to which ruling of the court they excepted, and which they now assign for error.
    L. P. Walker, for the appellants.
    Lemuel Cook, contra.
    
   GOLDTHWAITE, J.

There is no error in the record.— The witness was competent, in the present case, to prove his own agency (Green. Ev. § 416); and conceding that the deposition established the fact, that the slave was sold under attachment against the witness, there is no evidence to show that he consented to the levy or sale, and the case is thus brought directly within the principle of Bush v. McGee, 4 Ala. 710. Having no interest which would disqualify him, no release was necessary.

The judgment is affirmed.  