When this court can see a wrong direction in matter of law, given by the circuit judge, and the verdict of the jury conformable thereto, * it can proceed with some certainty in pronouncing upon the question. But when it depends, not upon such wrong directions, but upon a supposed mis *433 take in the jury in making improper inferences from the evidence laid before them, this court ought to act with great caution. All the little circumstances and appearances which deservedly have weight with the court and jury below, observing the countenance, the tone, the manner, the working of the passions, and the struggle to suppress or conceal them, cannot be put upon the record; here w'e cannot see and remark them. Unless, then, the case be a very uncommon instance of rashness in the jury, it is better to leave it to them who are the proper tribunal for the decision of fact, to make up such an opinion as to them seems most correct. Here is evidence on both sides; they have given the preponderancy to one side. We should endanger the cause of justice, perhaps, should we interfere.

Judgment of the Circuit Court affirmed.

See Haynes v. Wright, 4 Hay. 63, and note sub fin.