delivered the opinion of the court.

We see no difference between this case and that of Marr v. Hill & Haynes, 10 Mo. 333. The evidence offered by the plaintiff of the declarations of the slave, made whilst she was laboring under sickness, as to the cause of her illness and the source of it, were admissible, and the court erred in excluding them. With the concurrence of the other judges, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.