
    George L. Walton v. William A. Hamilton.
    Where a defendant, sued for the hire of the plaintiff's slaves, denies the existence of any contract, between himself and the plaintiff, and claims to have obtained them from a third person, to whom they had been hired by the plaintiff: held, that to constitute this an available defence, he must show a liability to pay that person, rather than the owner, so as to negative the existence of his liability to the owner, arising from the use of his slaves.
    Error from Travis. Tried below before the Hon. Alexander W. Terrell.
    William A. Hamilton, brought suit in the justice’s court, against George L. Walton, for $74.76, for the hire of two negroes, belonging to the plaintiff.
    On the trial, the plaintiff testified, that the defendant hired the slaves of him, and agreed to pay him for their services, the same amount that F. S. Roy had paid him for their hire.
    The defendant testified, that he went to see Hamilton about hiring the negroes, and ascertained from him, that he had no objection to the employment by him, (Walton,) of the negroes, from F. S. Roy; that he never hired the negroes from the plaintiff. The defendant had the possession and use of the negroes, during the time for which the plaintiff claimed payment of hire for their services.
    The judgment of the justice’s court was rendered for the defendant, and the plaintiff applied for, and obtained a writ of certiorari, the petition for which, alleged the foregoing facts, and stated the evidence adduced on the trial by both parties.
    The defendant filed exceptions to the petition for certiorari, and set forth as grounds thereof, the insufficiency of the facts proved on the trial, to entitle the plaintiff to recover a judgment against the defendant, or to show an indebtedness to the plaintiff, from the defendant.
    The defendant’s exceptions were overruled, and there was a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff, for the sum of $69.66.
    
      
      James P. Meal, for the defendant in error.
   Roberts, J.

We think there is no error shown in the record. The question of most importance, seems to be, whether or not, the court erred, in overruling the exceptions to the petition for certiorari. The evidence of Walton, as detailed in the petition, stops short of a full and satisfactory denial of the facts, sworn to by Hamilton. It should have shown, that he was liable to Roy for the hire of the negroes, so as to negative the existence of his liability to Hamilton, arising from the use of his slaves.

Judgment affirmed.  