~) I From Bertie. J This was an action of trover for a negro slave named Stephen. It was proved on the trial that about twenty years before, Stephen was given by parol by John Wat-ford to his son, the Plaintiff, who was an infant aged one or two years. A formal delivery of the slave was made, and persons were called to witness it. At the time of the gift the father was indebted, but not beyond his ability to pay.
¶2
The case of M’Cree v. Houston, decided at this term, governs this case. Indeed, if there could be a difference between the two cases, it would be against the present Plaintiff| because, after the parol gift to him, the father retained possession of the slave until the sale to Holloman. But in Law there can be no difference. The same reasons that governed the Court in deciding for the Defendant in M’Cree v. Houston, compel them to say that a new trial ought to he granted in this case. The verdict rendered was against Law, as the gift to the child was not by deed, and on that account void against creditors and purchasers under the act of 1784, ch. 10. It is not material that Holloman did not pay the full value of the slave: if he paid nearly the value, it is sufficient. He probably retained as much as would remunerate him for the trouble of defending a suit. Lot the rule for a now trial be made absolute.
