
    Feeter against Whipple, Sheriff, &c.
    a vei,_ diet,was against. the weight of evidence; yet ding in tort, bean acontroversy small, and the evidence as to the damages, new trial wa» reiused'
    THIS was an action of trespass on the case, brought .against the defendant, as sheriff of the county of Madi- ° ' 'SOU, for an escape.
    
    At the trial of the cause, before Mr. Justice Tates, at the Madison circuit, the 30th May, 1811, it was proved -that the defendant took one Hadcock, in July, 1809, on a ca. sa. at the suit of the plaintiff, for 60 dollars and 30 1 , eents damages, and 20 dollars costs ; and that the sherin left Hadcock at the house where he was taken, while he, the sheriff, went a short distance, and told Hadcock to wait until his return; that after waiting a short time, Hadcock left the house and went home, where he staid all night, and the next morning, on his way to the plaintiff’s, was again arrested by the sheriff, who took him to Petersburgh, out of the direct road to the gaol, and left him in a house, when he made his escape and returned home, and kept out of the sheriff’s way, until he: was again arrested on the execution in September, and oarried to the county gaol. It appeared that the sheriff, after the second escape, made search after his prisoner, and offered and paid a reward for his recaption -
    The defendant proved the insolvency of Hadcock, and his inability to pay any part of the. debt. It was shown that, in November, after his imprisonment, his property, to the amount of 45 dollars, had been taken and sold on executions issued from a justice’s court; but that there was some dispute about the property.
    The judge charged the jury, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover in damages, as much as he had lost by "the escape; and that they would be warranted to find a verdict for the plaintiff for 45 dollars, the amount of property sold on the executions in November• The jury, found a verdict for the defendant.
    
      A motion was made to set aside the verdict, which was submitted to the court, without argument.
   Per Curiam.

The verdict is against the weight of evidence. But the action sounding in tort, and the sum. in controversy small, and the value of the prisoner’s property uncertain, and the evidence on that point contradictory, it is not a case for a new trial. The motion is, therefore, denied.

Motion- denied.  