Case ID: scl_4/html/0033-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, CHARLESTON,
    JAN. 1806.
    Snipes v. Remoussin.
    A new trial will not be granted where the weight of evidence appears to be rather against the verdict, although not clearly and decidedly so, where the evidence is various and contradictory on both sides.
    Motion for a new trial. Trover for certain negroes, which plain» tiff claimed as formerly loaned to his son Henry, whose widow the defendant married. The defendant claimed the negroes as having been given to the son, and not lent. Verdict for'the plaintiff, contrary to the opinion of Bay, J., before whom the cause was tried. It was proved that Henry Snipes had possession of the negroes ten years, and died possessed of them. But it was proved that Henry Snipes had declared the negroes were only lent to him, and that he kept the deputy sheriff, who had executions against him, from levying on these negroes, «Sec. Other declarations of Henry Snipes, made at a time subsequent, were offered by defendant, to shew that he claimed the negroes absolutely as his own, were refused to be admitted. The defendant gave in evidence, a letter from the plaintiff to his son, in which he speaks thus: “ My wishes are to settle you, but you know my situation ; if I should give you any negroes, and if you should take them to Sfono, they would be seized by the sheriff} but I will settle you, if my creditors will give me indulgence,” &c.
    There was some contradiction in the evidence, but the whole was left to the jury, with directions if they should believe the negroes were intended to be given to the son, when placed in his possession, to find for the defendant, otherwise for the plaintiff. The motion in this court to set aside the verdict, was argued by Desaussure, for the defendant; and by the Attorney General, Pringue, for the plaintiff..
    Mr. Desaussure
    contended, that the weight of evidence was against the verdict, and that the opinion of the presiding judge was against it at the trial; and that the subsequent declarations of young Snipes ought to have been allowed to go to the jury, to discredit his former declarations. The father had promised to settle his son, and the long possession of the negroes was sufficient evidence that they were given in pursuance of the promise previously made to settle him. Cited Bay, 331.
    Pringle, on the other side,
    after commenting on the evidence, insisted, that the evidence was fully before the jury, and their verdict was warranted by it. Cited 6 Bac. 664, new ed. 2Str. 1105, 1142. 3 Wils. 39, 47. 1 Wils. 22. 1 Bl. R. 1. Sayer, 264. Was not a on consideration of marriage; no pretence to consider it so. The negroes were loaned, after marriage some time, and the condition of the loan was expressed. Plaintiff’s letter ex* plains why it was not a gift. The subsequent declarations of young Snipes could not have been admitted properly, to support his own claim. The court should be cautious not to touch on tho province of the jury; to undertake to judge how far the jury have done right in deciding on facts, and the credibility of witnesses.
   The court being diyided, the decision was postponed until 7th January, 1806, when the opinion of Grimke, Bat, and Brevard, the only judges who heard the argument, was given against the motion. The substance of the opinion was, that although verdicts contrary to evidence, or where there is no evidence to support them, have been set aside and new trials granted, yet where there is a contrariety of evidence on both sides, the court will not grant a new trial, even if they should think the weight of evdence against the verdict, unless it should appear to be greatly and manifestly so; and that the credibility of witnesses is a matter almost exclusively within the province of the jury.