This  precise  question  has  never  been  determined  by  this
court,  but  the  principle  laid  down,  and  the  reasons  assigned  for
it,  in  Williams  v.  The  State,  87  Miss.  R,  407,  fully  cover  the
question  under  consideration.  The  fact  that  the  accused  in  this
case  was  a  slave,  and  not  a  fi*ee  white  person,  constitutes  no  suf-
ficient reason  for  departing  firom  a  rule  founded  in  good  sense
and  manifest  policy.
3.  Excluding  the  testimony  of  the  witness  Josephine,  it  is
Tery  certain  that  the  facts  proved  by  all  the  other  witnesses  do
not,  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  establish  the  guilt  of  the  plain-
tiff in  eiTor ;  but  it  is  equally  certain  that,  giving  full  credit  to
her  testimony,  the  prooft  were  altogether  sufficient  to  warrant
die  Terdict  of  the  jury.  There  was  a  conflict  between  the  testi-
mony of  the  witness  Eliza,  a  witness  examined  for  the  defense,
and  that  of  Josephine ;  and  it  is  manifest  that  if  the  jury  had
given  full  credit  to  the  former,  the  result  of  their  deliberations
might  have  been  very  different.  But  in  such  a  case,  that  is,
where  there  is  a  conflict  in  the  evidence,  it  is  the  peculiar  prov-
ince of  the  jury  to  decide  upon  the  credibility  of  the  .respective
witnesses,  and  to  believe  the  statements  of  those  whom  they
judge  entitled  to  credit.  We  are  not  prepared  to  say,  under  all
«f  Aa  dicomstances  proved  by  the  testimony,  that,  according  to
the  rules  of  law^  the  jury  were  not  authorized  to  disbdieve  the


Jstfy  V.  Stats.  '  [89  Miok

and  to  credit  the  testimonj  ol


1422


statements  cf  the  witness
Josephine.
