1 Port. 388 | Ala. | 1835
Clark sued Evans in the Circuit Court, on a note dated “Cheraw, Oct. 8th, 1829.” The defendant introduced a witness who said he knew a place of that name in South Carolina, but none in this state.
The defendant moved the court to charge the jury, that if they believed from the testimony, that the note was made in South Carolina, they could give no interest without proof that such contracts carry interest in that state. This instruction was refused by the court. The record also shows, that no other testimony was introduced.
The refusal of the court to give the instructions requested, is the cause assigned for error.
Whether it was competent for the jury, with or without the instructions of the court, to allow what they considered reasonable damages for the detention of the debt, is not a ques" tion uow presented. If, proceeding on the principles of the common law, and the presumption that there was no other in South Carolina, none being shown, the Judge on refusing
In this view of the question, the former decision of this court,
The refusal of the court fo charge the jury was an error ; for which the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded.
Ala R. 387.