#### JOHN P. HOUSTON, *et al. administrators, v.*JAMES MOORE, *et al.*

Whore A sold a slave to B, and took a bond for the purchase-money, giving at the same time, a bill of sale for the slave, the surrender of the bond to the obligee afterwards, without its being discharged, is not evidence in a suit brought by B for the detention of the slave.

This was an action of repleyiN, for slaves, tried before Bailey, Judge, at the Pali Term, 1851, of Union Superior Court.

The plaintiffs derived title from one Jane Moore, by a bill of sale, executed by her to the plaintiffs’ intestate, in which was expressed a consideration of $500. The slaves in question were taken possession of by plaintiffs’ intestate, and while in possession of an agent of his in South Carolina, were taken possession of by the defendants.

The defendants proposed to prove by Jane Moore, and by her sister, Mrs. Cams, that at the time of the execution of the bill of sale in question, a controversy had arisen between the witness, Jane, and the administrator of Milton Moore, with regard to the title of these slaves; the latter claiming, them as a part of the assets of his intestate’s estate; that a note was executed by the plaintiffs’ intestate to the witness, Jane Moore, which it was agreed, should not be paid, and which was after-wards surrendered up to the plaintiffs’ intestate, and destroyed; and that Armfield, the intestate, was to defend the lawsuit, and account to her for the slaves, on certain specified conditions, if the suit went in her favor. This testimony was rejected by the court, and the defendants excepted.

Yerdict for the plaintiffs. Judgment; and appealed by the defendants.

*523
      *Wilson*and *V.*Barringer, for tbe plaintiffs.

*Lander*and *Avery,*for the defendants.

Nash, C. J.

The testimony, rejected in this case, was properly rejected. It was perfectly immaterial, and could have no proper influence on the minds of the jury in coming to a correct conclusion.

The plaintiffs derived title to the negroes in question under a bill of sale, from Jane Moore, the consideration mentioned being $500, which was secured by the note, or bond, of Need-ham Armfield, the purchaser, the plaintiffs’ intestate. The defendants offered to prove, by Jane Moore, and her sister, Elizabeth Cams, that, at the time Qf the execution of the bill of sale, a controversy had arisen between Jane Moore and the administrator of Milton Moore, as to the title to the slaves, and it was agreed, between Jane Moore, and the intestate, Arm-field, that the bond given to secure the purchase-money, should not be paid, and it was, accordingly, delivered up and destroyed. Upon objection by the plaintiffs, the testimony was ruled out. No reason is given for the ruling of the court, but the decision was correct. Though the bond was given up and destroyed, the bill of sale was not. That remained still in force, and under it the legal title was in Armfield, the intestate. It is well established that it is the duty of the court to exclude from the jury all immaterial evidence, for it has a direct tendency to confuse and mislead them. Now, whether the bond given for the purchase-money was destroyed or not, could not effect the legal claim of Armfield, who still held under the bill of sale.

There was no error in rejecting the evidence.

There are other objections to the testimony of Mrs. Moore, which do not apply to her sister, and which are not considered by the court.

Pee CuexaM, Judgment affirmed.