spectable and intelligent, and certainly above all imputation of improper motives, were unquestionably influenced by false and unfounded considerations in estimating the damages. The case had been long pending; was publicly investigated at a former term; had been much talked of; had given rise to much excitement, and the jury were doubtless influenced by public opinion, and unconsciously disregarded the evidence. We can alone account in this way for damages so outrageously excessive, so entirely disproportionate to the injury sustained.
On the ground of excessive damages, the verdict must be set aside.
It remains for us to answer another objection to the granting of a new trial. It has been said that this is the second application for a new trial. Admitting this, we are neither precluded by the plain language of our own statute, nor by the general principles of law, from granting a second new trial. Digest, 261; More's Administrator v. Chery, 1 Bay, 269; Goodwin v. Gibbon, 4 Barrow, 2188, or Morgan’s Essays, 27, 28. In Goodwin v. Gibbon, Lord Mansfield said, "there was no ground to say that a new trial should not be granted after a former new trial. There is no such rule. A new trial must depend upon answering the ends of justice." Justices Yates and Astor concurred, saying, that a second new trial ought to be granted as well as the first, if the reasons were sufficient for granting it. But we deny, strictly speaking, that this is a second application for a new trial. In the former trial the finding of the jury was not received on the ground of its uncertainty and insufficiency, and a new trial was awarded as a matter of course, on that account, and without the slightest reference to the merits of the case. The second ground for a new trial is, "that the verdict is contrary to evidence and law." The first branch of this reason has been already discussed. As regards the second, we take it for granted, without reference to the affidavits of the two jurors, which were inadmissible, that the jury took into consideration, in estimating the damages, the value of the negroes; and if so it was contrary to law and against the instructions of the court. It has already been shown that Lewis, by virtue of the mortgage, was invested with a clear and indisputable
