
    GENERAL COURT,
    MAY TERM, 1798.
    Clagett vs. Speake.
    This was a special action on the case for the non-performance of a parol agreement to take care of, and to return, negro 'slaves who had been hired by the plaintiff to the defendant.
    The plaintiff, at the trial, offered in evidence to the jury, that he the plaintiff, with four of his negro slaves, had been at work on a ship in Alexandria, of which the defendant was captain,* and that on Thursday the plaintiff was about to quit the ship before she was done, on which occasion the defendant remonstrated against it, and requested the plaintiff to suffer his negroes to stay and finish the work; and -that provided the said negroes were left, he promised and engaged to carry up the said negroes from Alexandria to George-Town, in the ship’s yawl, on the Saturday following, and deliver them safe to the plaintiff.
    The plaintiff then offered in evidence, that on the Saturday, the mate of the ship having asked the captain if they had any thing more to do, and being answered no, discharged the said negroes; and afterwards the negroes left the vessel, and went off in a pilot boat, which was going from Alexandria to George-Town; and that the pilot boat overset in her passage, and the two negro slaves in the declaration mentioned were drowned.
    After which the defendant offered in evidence, that the plaintiff, as lie was leaving the ship after the agree-{Rent with the defendant, and when the defendant was not present, ordered the said negroes,"that on Saturday they must leave the said ship, the work done or not, and make the best of their way home, and take care of their tools. On giving the said orders, the plaintiff left the said ship, and returned no more to it. That the plaintiff did not, at the time of such orders, give any directions to the said negroes about the manner in which they should return home, or that they were to go with the defendant, or that they were to apply to him for any assistance when coming away.
    Thereupon the defendant prayed the court to “direct the jury, that although they should believe the facts so offered in evidence by the plaintiff to be true, yet if they believed that the plaintiff had afterwards, and in the absence of the defendant, thus given Lis directions as aforesaid to his said negroes, without referring them to the defendant, or directing them to go home under the defendant’s care, the defendant was thereby freed from responsibility, and was not liable for the loss of the said negroes.
    Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff’.
    
      ICey, for the plaintiff.
    Martin, (Attorney-General,) and Mason, for the defendant.
    The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals; and the judgment bi‘ the General Court was affirmed at Juno term 1300,
   Goedssorougu, Ch. J.

The court are of opinion, and direct tiiejury, that if they shall be of opinion, from the whole of the evidence, that the plaintiff gave the negroes orders to return, inconsistent with the contract and engagement made by the defendant and the plaintiff, then such directions, so given to the negroes, will release the defendant from any responsibility for the events which afterwards happened: But the court refuse to direct the jury, that if the plaintiff did give the directions stated fey the defendant, in the maimer and under the circumstances so stated, the. defendant is thereby freed from responsibility for the loss of the negroes.

In consequence of the court thus refusing to give such directions to the jury, the defendant excepted.  