
    James Knight vs. William Knotts.
    Defendant gave plaintiff Lis note for eighty dollars “for tlie Lire of Lis boy Tom.” In an action of assumpsit for employing Tom in a way contrary to the agreement, whereby Lis death was caused, held, that it was admissible for the plaintiff to show the terms of the contract of hiring by parol.
    BEFORE WARDLAW, J., AT ORANGEBURG, FALL TERM, 1854.
    ■ This was an action of assumpsit. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had agreed not to employ, in certain ways, Tom, a slave of plaintiff’s, which he hired for the year 1852; and that he did so employ Tom, whereby his death was caused.
    The plaintiff adduced a note, dated January 2, 1852,? made by the defendant, payable to the plaintiff, or bearer, twelve months after date, for eighty dollars, “ it being for the hire of his boy Tom.” Testimony of conversations between the parties, at and before the making of the note, to show an agreement concerning the way the slave should, or should not, be employed during the hiring, was objected to by the defendant, as parol addition to the written contract contained in the note; but was admitted by his Honor, the presiding judge.
    The case was left to the jury, who found for the plaintiff eight hundred dollars.
    The defendant appealed, and now moved this Court for a new trial, on the ground, inter alia,
    
    
      Second. Because it was in evidence that the contract for the alleged breach of which the action was brought, was reduced to writing; and it is respectfully submitted that his Honor erred in ruling that parol testimony'"as to a parol contract was admissible.
    
      
      (Hover, for the motion,
    cited 2 Stark. Ev. 573; lb. 1076; Phil. Ev. 772; Wood vs. Ashe, 1 Strob. 412; Grasoway vs. Moore, Harp. 401; MeDowall vs. Bechley, 2 Mill, 265; Falconer vs. Grarrison, 1 McO. 209 ; Saund. on PI. & Ev. 137 ; 1 Chit. PI. 385.
    
      Be Treville and Whaley, contra.
    
      Hutson, in reply.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

O’Neall, J.

In this case the first ground of appeal was abandoned.

The second was very ingeniously presented by the appellant’s counsel. But it is a clear mistake to suppose, that a note for the payment of a sum for the hire of a slave is the contract of hiring. The contract whereby one agrees to let another have the services of a slave for a given period, is the consideration of the note.

The latter might, if the parties chose, have set out the whole contract. But this note merely promises to pay so much money, eighty dollars, “for the hire of his (the plaintiff’s) boy Tom.” It is necessary to resort to oral testimony to ascertain how long he was hired: and it may equally well be ascertained by the same kind of testimony, what he was hired to do, and in what manner he was to be treated.

This is neither alteration of, nor addition to a written contract. We are unanimously, therefore, of opinion, that the verbal proof was properly admitted.

The facts were properly submitted to the jury, and their verdict cannot be disturbed.

The motion is dismissed.

WaRdlaw, Withers, Whither, Glover and Munro, JJ., concurred.

Motion dismissed.  