#### Hamilton vs. Person's administrator.

bond was dated in 1777, when money was depreciated two and a quarter for one, payable in 1778, when money was depreciated four and a half. The jury found the value according to the latter period. In consequence whereof, they found for the defendant, his payments being larger than that value. A new trial was moved for, and the ground of the motion was, that the jury should have sealed at the former period.

Counselfor the defendant.

All that we are bound to do by the treaty is, to give the value of the debt to the British creditor : and if we estimate the value by the same measure as to our citizens, there cannot be any cause for complaint, The act of 1783 has declared that all matters, circumstances and things, shall be given, in evidence to the jury, and that they shall make up their verdict according to equity and good conscience. They have not directed the time of the contract, nor of the payment to be taheñas the proper period. The jury are the only proper judges — and here they have valued their debt; and what is there to enable us to say they have done wrong ? No evidence at all was given of the consideration of the bond. Perhaps it may have beea a speculating contract, made with a view to the value at the time of payment. The jury ought so to consider every contract made in times af depreciation, unless -circuit! *. *237stances are presented to them on the part of the plaintiff, to slievf the justice of the other period.

Hall, Judge

Let a new trial be granted.