
    Penelope Sims par pro. ami vs. John Saunders.
    
      Plaintiff having given inconclusive testimony of g parol gift and delivery of a slave, introduced the subsequent declarations of the donor, to establish that he had given; held that on the part of defendant, the subsequent acts and declarations oj the donor were properly received in evidence, to shew that he had not given.
    
    The plaintiff claimed a slave, who was the subject of the suit, by a parol gift from her grandfather. Testimony of a somewhat inconclusive character, was offered to establish the gift and delivery of the slave, and declarations of the grandfather, made after the alleged gift, admitting the fact of his having gh en, were also -introduced.
    The defendant claimed the slave under a deed from his father1 (who was the grandfather of plaintiff) of a date subsequent to the alleged gift to plaintiff. On his part, evidence was admitted of declarations of the donor, made after the supposed parol gift, to shew that he had not given. The recond of an action brought by the present plaintiff against the donor-in his life time and which had abated by his death, to which he -he had pleaded “not guilty”, was also admitted. Verdict for defendant.
    A new trial was moved for on the ground that the declarations of the donor, made subsequently to the gift to plaintiff, and the record of the action to which the donor had pleaded not guilty, were improperly admitted in evidence on the part of defendant.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Nott.

As a general rule of law, a person who has made a gift or done any other act, cannot be permitted to impeach it by his after declarations. — If therefore the gift in this case had been proved, the declarations of the donor ought to have been rejected: but the proof was imperfect and inconclusive. If the plaintiff had relied alone on the evidence of the gift and delivery, without resorting to subsequent declarations on her part, the defendant could not have been permitted to give such evidence. But as the plaintiff was obliged to resort to the conduct and conversation of the donor to ascertain his int'ehtion, that testimony, like every other, ought to be given entire. The motion therefore must be refused.

■A. W. Thompson, for motion.

Williams, -contra.

Richardson, Huger, and Johnson, Justices concurred.  