Pye v. Wood 3 H. & J. 504

Pye vs. Wood, et ux.

Appeal from Charles County Court. Debt upon a replevin bond, entered into on the 1st of April 1804 -y Sally and Elizabeth Doncastle, with the defendant, # appellant,) and another, as their sureties, to Ridgale, administratrix of Thomas II Ridgale, -;-/1 intermarried with John Woods, tbs plaintiffs, (the i lees.) General performance was pleaded. Replication, nonperformance, setting out the action of replevin brought *505fey the boncaslles against Ridgate’s administratrix, and its being nonprossed, &c. At the trial the plaintiffs offered to prove by the record and proceedings produced, that the negroes, iu the condition of the writing obligatory mentioned, were taken under the replevin, DoncaslU against Ridgale, and kept out off the possession of the plaintiff, from May 1804 to March 1805. The defendant then offered á competent witness, who proved the value of the said negroes at arid during the time aforesaid, and also proved their value in October 1809 tobé equal to their value at the time aforesaid: And then, in order to show by the declarations off the plaintiffs, that the said negroes were of little or no value, offered to ask the witness the following questions: “Did you hear tiie plaintiffs at any time in October 1809, say that they knew where the negroes were, that they had left their possession by their orders, and that they would take no steps to regain the possession of them, and that they did not \tish, and would not allow them to returnr” To the answering of these questions by the witness, the plaintiffs objected; And the Court, [Key and Clarke, A. J.] decided (he questions to be inadmissible, and refused to permit them to be answered. The defendant excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against him, he appealed to this court, where the cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. and BuciiAj saw, Johnson and Martin, J. by

*504 In &n action on a replevin bond, executed On su* ii»£ out a writ of x^plovin for nei?rn staves, vyliieh writ was non proved, nnd the plaintiff} hi»re were kept Out of the negroes ¿Yom May 1304 to March 1305. The defendant in' or <W to shew the doclarations of the jdiiintivii, that the slaves were of otfli* m* n.s vcvlniAnfuc m n</ ihred to ask a witness the following question. ‘‘Did yovf hear the plaintiffs at any time in October IPOfysny th it th »y knew where Un neff*oe> were, that they hid loft their possession1 by their orders, an»i that they woo d rake ho st*M>s to regain the possession -of them, and that they did not wish, and wouitj not allow them to return?’' — Kddg that the question was iuadioisuWe* and should' aot.be answered*

*505 Chapman, for the' Appellant.

No Counsel appeared for the Appellees.