Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 La. 136

Myers v. Slack

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided January 15, 1834

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1834-01-15

This cause was brought by the owner of a slave named Joe, drowned while in the defendant’s employ, to recover of him the value of the slave. This cause is now before this court on second appeal. It was remanded for a new trial on the previous appeal, because the Supreme Court were unable to agree with the three juries who had found verdicts for the plaintiff. For a statement of the facts and the opinion of this court on the first appeal. See 5 La. Rep. 53.

Decided 1834-01-15

Mathews, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2This suit is brought to recover the value of a slave which was hired by the plaintiff to the defendant. The claim is made on account of the loss of said slave who was drowned whilst in the service of the defendant, and whilst he was employed in a manner not authorised by the contract of hiring; The petitioner further alleges that the death of his slave occured in consequence of negligence and want of ordinary care on the part of a person under whose direction he was placed by authority of the defendant.

¶3This is the second time the case has been before the Appellate Court, and the plaintiff and appellee now appears aided by four verdicts in his favor, having obtained three before the cause was first before this court, and one since it was remanded for a new trial.

¶4The evidence which comes up on the present appeal, does not differ very materially from that which appeared on the record on the former. An additional witness testified *138on court below, and his testimony does give a coloring to the whole evidence of the case, rather more unfavorable to the defendant, than was exhibited previously. A correct adjustment of the dispute between the parties depends mainly on matters of fact, and as four juries ^ave decided these matters in favor of the plaintiff, we are °f opinion that the judgment of the court below ought not again to be disturbed.

Where a cause depending mainfactT hadt0beo°n jüri”',U;md°tiiree beengivenfortho plaintiff, and the two other juries agree, and on appeal the cause was remanded for a new trial, and a fourth verdict was afterwards had for the plaintiff, on the second appeal the Supreme Court refused to set aside the verdict

¶5It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that the , ^ judgment of the District Court, be affirmed with costs,

/6/la/136 · .json · Public domain