¶1 We do not discover any error in the charge of his Honor except in relation to the question of damages. Upon the facts as they are stated in the bill of exceptions, his Honor was justified in instructing the jury that they might find for the plaintiff. The case of Hazard v. Robinson, 3 Mason’s Rep. 236, relied upon by the plaintiff’s counsel, is directly in point for him, and the force of it is not at all weakened by the authorities referred to on the part of the defendant.
¶2 But the charge of the Court “ that in estimating the damages, the jury might take into account the injury done since the writ, down to the trial, provided such injury flowed from the acts of defendant done before the bringing of the action, and which continued in their effects to the present time,” we hold to be erroneous. It is in direct conflict with the case of Moore v. Love, decided at the last term, and reported, ante 215, but not published until since the trial of this cause. For *303 the reasons which are fully stated in that case, and which, therefore, need not be repeated here, we must reverse the judgment and grant a venire de novo,
¶3 Judgment reversed.