ROBERT ELLIOTT, negro, defendant below vs. MARTIN MORGAN, plaintiff below

ROBERT ELLIOTT, negro, defendant below vs. MARTIN MORGAN, plaintiff below. Negro testimony is admissible in a case between negroes, or against a negro. The entry of a judgment aided by reference to the margin. Aided also by reference to the report of referees. Certiorari to Justice Tindal. This was an action of trespass. The record showed a trial by referees, and a report “that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff I on the above complaint the sum of four dollars: and nine dollars and six cents cost of suit.” The entry of judgment was as follows: “judgment rendered the 26th of December, 1840. M. Tindal;” and the marginal note stated the amount of the judgment and of the costs to be the same as in the report. It also appeared from the record, that Curtis Turner, negro, had I been summoned as a witness by the plaintiff below, and his fees for j attendance were taxed in the bill of costs. The exceptions were to the sufficiency of the judgment entry; and! that improper evidence had been heard; that it was not competent tol examine a negro witness on a trial between a white man and negro.f [MAJORITY — Per Curiam.] Per Curiam. The justice can render no other judgment on the! report of referees than such as is warranted by the report. The in-j ference, therefore, on this entry would be, that the judgment was &cA cording to the report; and this inference is confirmed by the marginal entry, which may be resorted to for this purpose. (Moore et al vs. Lunney, ante 28; and Booth vs. Jump, 2 Barr. Rep. 461.) Negro testimony is always received in the courts of our State, in cases between negroes or against a negro. It is not competent to this defendant to object to such testimony; nor does it appear conclusively from the record that the witness, Turner, was in fact examined. Houston, for exceptant, defendant below. Wootten, for respondent. Judgment affirmed.