#### T. J. MAXWELL, Adm’r. v. ROBERT HIPP, and another.

A bond for money for the hire of a slave for 1865, given January 2d 1865, is subject to be scaled according to the value of the hire for a year, in lawful money, and not according to the legislative table of the values of Confederate currency (acts of 1865-66, c. 39.)

(Robeson v. Brown, 63 ST. C. 554, and Garrett v. Smith, ante, 93, cited and approved.)

Debt, tried before Logan, J., at January Special Term 1870, of Mecklenberg Court.

*99The plaintiff declared npon a bond oí the denfendant’s for $1010, payable to tbe plaintiff, and dated January 2d 1865. The plaintiff offered to prove that said bond was given for the hire of a negro man belonging to his intestate, for the year 1865, and that his hire was worth $50.

His Honor excluded the testimony.

Verdict for $7 70, of which $6 21 is principal money, &c., Rule, &e., Judgment, and Appeal by the plaintiff.

Wilson for the appellant.

No counsel, contra.

Dice;, J.

The bond declared on was executed during the late war, and there is a legal presumption that it was solvable in Confederate money.

The consideration of this bond was the services of a slave, which belonged to the estate of plaintiff’s intestate. The plaintiff ought to have been permitted to introduce evidence as to the value of such consideration, as that was the amount which he was entitled to recover. The legislative scale does not apply to this contract, as the consideration was not Confederate money: Robeson v. Brown, 63 N. C. 554; Garrett v. Smith, at this term.

There was error in the ruling of his Honor.

Let this be certified.

Pee Otjeiam. Venire de novo.