
    R. C. Brown vs. Richard Griffin.
    
      New Trial — Sum. pro. — Evidence.
    Sum. pro. for negligence of defendant by Ms slaves in burning plaintiff’s house. Decree for plaintiff set aside, and new trial ordered, on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to show that the burning was owing either to the wilful or negligent act of the slaves.
    AT LAURENS, FALL TERM, 1859.
    This was an action on the case founded on the alleged negligence of defendant by his slaves in the burning of the house of plaintiff.
    The following is the evidence:
    
      “John Hitt. — The defendant having no negro houses on his place, the plaintiff, for his accommodation, permitted him to use the house in question, until he could build one of his own. It was occupied by several negroes, women and men, for about three months. About two years ago last April, witness discovered the house on fire about twelve o’clock in the day; when he reached it the roof was falling in; thinks it took fire from within; no one was near to it; all the negroes were at work in the field; thinks the house worth twenty-five or thirty dollars. The house made of hewed logs; two stories and piazza; fire-place above and below; lower part of chimney made of rock, upper part of brick.
    “Some distance from house to defendant’s plantation; plaintiff knew where defendant’s land was; the negroes’ clothing, beds, and furniture, all consumed.
    “One Zachree occupied previous year and paid sixteen dollars rent for it.
    
      
      “Richard Goodman.- — The ' house was twenty-two feet long by eighteen wide; had a room below and one above; was well worth seventy-five or eighty dollars; had a good chimney; built a good while ago.
    
      “D. Bozeman. — Witness had occupied the house for two years, and was well worth seventy-five or eighty dollars, or more; was twenty-two by eighteen feet.”
    The decree was for the plaintiff for seventy dollars.
    The defendant appealed, and now renewed his motion for a nonsuit, on the grounds stated below, and failing in that, then for a new trial, on the same grounds:
    1. Because the house was used and occupied for the purpose it was obtained, and there was no proof of negligence either on the part of the defendant or his slaves, and that the reasonable conclusion was that the house was burned by accident.
    2. Because the defendant was not liable to the plaintiff upon the facts proved.
    
      Sullivan, for appellant.
    
      Bobo, contra.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Johnstone, J.

In this case is not necessary to consider the question whether the master of slaves is liable for injuries resulting to third persons from their negligence, or from acts done by them without his order or knowledge.

Since the leading case of Snee vs. Trice, these questions have been much considered; but nothing applicable to the present case is to be extracted from the decisions. A master may be liable for tbe neglect or nnskilfulness of bis slave in tbe course of a public employment, in wbicb tbe master has held him out as a fit agent. He may, even, be liable for similar miscarriages, occurring in tbe course of bis slave’s engagement in tbe master’s own business, by wbicb third persons have suffered. Let it be conceded further, that he may be made liable for the slave’s wilful acts, though totally unknown to and unauthorized by the master. Any of these positions, especially the last, would tend much to endanger the interest of slave owners, and, of course, to destroy the value of the institution of slavery. But they may be all conceded, without rendering the defendant liable in this ease. There is, positively, no proof in the case that the burning of the negro house arose from the defendant’s slaves — either from their wilful act, or from their negligence.

From any thing that appears, they had as little connection with the causes of the combustion as the persons who first discovered the fact that the house was on fire. There is nothing to show that it was not a mere accident. The slaves were not present, but were at their work on the plantation ; and so far from having any motive to fire the house, or were being indifferent in the matter, they lost their own clothes and bedding by the conflagration.

I should myself have been disposed to grant a nonsuit; but acquiesce in the conclusion of my brethren, that a new trial be granted in order that the facts may come out more fully. It is ordered that the decree be set aside, and a new trial be had.

Wardlaw, J., concurred.

O’Neall, 0. J., absent at the hearing, attending Colonel Preston’s funeral.

Motion granted. 
      
       2 Bay, 345.
     
      
       3 McC. 400. Dud. 265, 268, 275.
     