[Image of page 1]

Filed 14th Jany 1832
W. Field Clk

[Image of page 2]

Ephraim Mirick
vs } Appeal
Andrew Hemphill

The appellant to reverse the Judgment of the Circuit Court given in this Case relies mainly on the following points, to wit.
By the Bill of Exceptions it appears that the court instructed the Jury that the criterion by which they must be governed in ascertaining the value of the 14 bales Cotton mentioned in Plffs. declaration, will be the value of 14 bales Cotton in New Orleans, at the date of an account of sales of 14 bales of Cotton, also stated in said Bill of Exceptions without any evidence having been adduced, showing that that the Cotton mentioned in said plaintiffs declaration had at the date of said account, been delivered to Soher Goodman &c, or that a reasonable time had for the delivery thereof as stated in the declaration had at that time elapsed, which instruction of the Court was consequently erroneous & a new trial therefore ought to have been granted.
See

The obligation Sued for is shown by the record to have been specially bailed to the deft., by the plaintiff, and there is not shewn by the evidence any special request to return it, the virdict consequently is contrary to and without evidence & therefore a new trial ought to have been granted.

The Court erred in refusing hear read on the motion for a new trial, the affidavit of Jurors, setting forth the understanding which they had of the instructions given them by the Court-

Previous Page | Next Page