Case ID: scl_3/html/0160-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per tot. cur.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT,
    CHARLESTON,
    MAY, 1802.
    The State v. May.
    Information and complaint to a magistrate is such a legal commencement of a prosecution on a penal statute, as saves the prosecution from the operation of the limitation act of 1748, although no indictment is found until after the expiration of the period limited by the act.
    An indictment, under the act of 1796, for trading with a slave, without a ticket, must negative every branch of the exception contained in the enacting clause ; and where such an indictment merely averred that the slave had no ticket from his master or owner, without adding, “ or any other person having the care or management of the said slave,” judgment was arrested.
    p.iiVii?!48’
    Motion for a new trial, and also in arrest of judgment.
    Defendant was indicted, and convicted, in Colleton district, for buying corn from a slave, contrary to the act of 1796, which enacts, “ that if any shopkeeper, or other person, shall, by himself, or other person, directly, or indirectly, buy from any slave any corn, or any other article whatever, or otherwise deal with any slave, not having a ticket, or permit, so to deal, Syc.,from and under the hand of his master, or owner, or such other person as may have the care or management of such slave, such shopkeeper, &c., shall for every such offence, forfeit a sum not exceeding two hundred dollars, &c., one half to the informer, <^c.” (2 Faust, 91.)
    The statute of limitations was pleaded ; and it appeared that the present indictment was not preferred within six months after the fact was committed: but it also appeared, that the information, on which the prosecution was founded, was given to a justice of peace in Charleston, within six months; and that a bill of indictment was given out in Charleston, on which the attorney general entered a nolle prosequi, finding the offence was committed in another district.
    The court ruled, that under these circumstances the prosecution was not barred, having been commenced by information to a magistrate within time, and pursued with due attention afterwards. The motion for a new trial, which rested principally on this point, was discharged.
    The motion in arrest of judgment was grounded on two objections to the indictment. 1. That the indictment does not specify the name of the owner, or manager of the slave, from whom ihe com is stated to have been bought. 2. That it is not stated that the slave had not a ticket or permit so to deal, &c., from and uuder the hand of his master or ownef, or such other person as had the care or management of such slave ; but only that he had , „ , ,. • , ■ no ticket from his master or owner.
    Mr. Cheves argued for the defendant,
    that this was a penal law, creating an offence, and ought to be strictly construed. To buy from a slave was lawful before the passing of this act, whether he had a ticket or not.’ The act declares, that so to deal with a slave, as is particularly expressed, and prohibited, in the act, shall subject the party to a penalty, unless the slave shall have a ticket, or permit, from under the hand of his master or owner, or suck other person as may have ike care or management of suck slave. In order to have charged the offence with proper certainty, it was nécessafy that the indictment should state, not only that the slave had not any ticket, or permit, from his master or owner, but also that ho had not any ticket, or permit, from such other person as had the caic or management of him,'according to the expressions of the act; for otherwise he might be convicted of the offence as charged in the indictment, ánd innocent of the offence created by the act, as he might not have a ticket from his master of owner, and yet have one from the overseer, of other person having the management of him.
    But it is also necessary that the name of the master, owner/ &c., should be set forth. The law requires certainty: and in criminal proceedings there ought to be great strictness, and par-" ticular certainty. King v. Mason. 2 T. R. 581. 1 Str. 497. Cowp. 082. 2 Hawk. P. C. 329. It ought to appear of re-’ cord with what and whose slave the party convicted has dealt»-' The slave’s name ought also to be mentioned.
    The attorney general, Pringle, contra.
    
    The strictness -of ancient times has been relaxed very much of late years. A more liberal and rational spirit of construction has been adopted. Little' attention is now paid to many exploded niceties, which were for. jnerly much regarded, and served only to puzzle and perplex the administration of justice. If an offence be charged with sufficient. certainty, so as to comprehend the substantial matter or cause of prosecution, it is enough : there is no need to state every particular in detail, and at length. 2 Hawk. P. C. 329. In an indictment on stat. 30 Geo. 2, c. 24, for obtaining money by false pretences, the person, with whom a wager is laid to have’been made, need not he named. 3 T, R. 100. So an indictment on 37 Gecn 3, c. 70, for seducing soldiers, need not set out the means used ibt? that purpose. Fuller’s ease, 2 Leach, 790;
    Where the person murdered is unknown* the indictment is good,if it be so laid. So here the slave may be unknown, and so may his master. Indictment lies for harboring numerous thieves, without-naming them. The words of the act- must be construed reddendo singula singulis. If the slave has a master, or owner, it must be stated he had a permit from such master, or owner. If he has no master, or owner, under whose care or management he immediately is, then must the indictment state that he had no permit from such other person, ¿pc. Nothing need be inserted in an indictment that is not necessary to be proved. In this case it was not necessary to prove that the negro had- not a ticket from such other person, dpc., because he was under the immediate care and directiou of his owner.
   Per tot. cur.

The judgment must be arrested.- The offence is-not charged with sufficient certainty. The words, “ or such other person,” &c., ought not have been omitted. For any thing that appears on the face of the indictment, the party might be innocent of any offence against the act, and yet be guilty of the offencecharged in the indictment.

Judgment arrested.-