-The acts and declarations of John Weaver, while he was in possession of the property in controversy were offered and admitted on both sides during the trial, as explanatory of his possession, The proceedings under the poor debtor laws, at the instance of John Weaver, by which a portion of the same property was allotted to him, were then offered by the defendants for the same purpose and were objected to, and ruled out by his Honor; and the exception to that ruling is the only point in the case as presented to us.
The reason why the evidence was rejected is not stated, and we were at a loss to see any reason for it, until we discovered from the case made for the Supreme Court that the mare in controversy was taken out of John Weaver’s possession by the defendants, on the 7th day of December 1857, and the colts a few days [¿thereafter. The proceedings which were rejected, were dated the 10th day of December 1857: The mare was at that time evidently not in John Weaver’s possession, but had been taken out three days before ; and, although it is not stated, as it ought to have been, whether the colts were also taken out of his possession before the 10th December, but only that they were taken out a few days after the 7th December, yet we must infer that it either appeared that the colts were not in his possession on the 10th, or that it did not appear whether they were or not. In that view of the case his Honor’s ruling was right; *481and we are to take it to have been right, unless the exception shows that it was wrong.
There is no error.
Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed*