Case ID: scl_25/html/0106-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Garia, per Earle, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State ex relatione W. Matthews v. E. V. Toomer, et al., (a Court of Magistrates and Freeholders of Christ Church Parish).
    A slave having been convicted by a Court of Magistrates, &c., of Christ Church, of the murder of a slave, who received the mortal injury in that parish, but died in another, in the same district; execution of the sentence was arrested by prohibition.
    The A. A. 1793, (1 E. 339 ; 5 Stat. So. Ca. 231,) providing, in case of mortal injury inflicted in one county or district, and death ensuing in another, that the trial shall be had where the death occurred, extends to the case of homicide of one slave by another.
    In the case of offences cognizable by a parish magistracy, the principle of the Act is applicable to the separate parish jurisdictions, though in the same district.
    The A. A. 1832, sec. 2, (p. 60,) concerning the trial of slaves, seems, to be only of special application to the city of Charleston.
    Before Evans, J., at Charleston, January, 1840.
    Suggestion for prohibition. Major, a slave of the relator, was convicted by a Court of Magistrates and Freeholders, in Christ Church parish, of the murder of Mary, the slave of Kobert PTowaxd, and was sentenced to be hung. The verdict was found by one magistrate and three, freeholders, a bare majority; the other magistrate and two freeholders finding manslaughter. It appeared that the deceased had received the injuries in' Christ Church parish, and was afterwards removed to Charleston, (St. Philip and St. Michael’s parish,) where she died. These parishes are both in Charleston district.
    A writ of prohibition was ordered, to prevent the execution of the sentence. The grounds for the motion, as considered by the Court, were, 1. That sentence of death was passed without a unanimous verdict of the freeholders. 2. That the prisoner was not tried in the parish where the deceased had died.
    “ The A. A. 1832, sec. 2, (p. 60,) requires that the freeholders shall be unanimous in capital cases; but on examining the series of Acts passed for organizing the peculiar magistracy of St. Philip’s and St. Michael’s, I am'satisfied that they form a system which does not extend to any other part of the State. At first, I was inclined to give to this enactment a general operation, and I regret that I am constrained to come to a different conclusion. The words “ principal magistrate” can have no meaning, unless in reference to the distinction of judicial and ministerial magistrates, which is unknown, except in the acts which relate to these parishes.
    “ In the instance of a mortal wound given in one county, or district, and death ensuing in another, it was formerly somewhat doubtful where the trial should be had. But the A. A. 1793, (1 Faust, 293 ; 5 Stat. So. Ca. 211,) requires it to be in the county or district where the deceased died. Under the provisions of that Act, if the blow had been given in Georgetown and the deceased had died in Charleston, there is no doubt that the trial should have been in the latter. The magistracy of the parishes is local; and I should suppose that all offences by slaves, in any particular parish, would be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the magistrates and freeholders of that parish. The parishes stand towards each other, as to jurisdiction, in the same relation that the Circuit Court districts do. They are not mentioned in the Act of 1793, but I can see no reason why its provision should not be extended to them in cases of conflict of jurisdiction, which it was intended to settle and declare. On this ground I am of opinion this prohibition should be granted.”
    The defendants appealed, and moved to set aside the writ.
    
      
       6 Stat. 458. An.
      
    
    
      
       6 Stat. 418, 328, 486. An.
      
    
   Garia, per Earle, J.

The Act of 1793, was passed for the purpose of settling a doubtful question on an important subject. The terms are very general, and, perhaps, were not intended, at the time, to embrace the homicide of one slave by another. At least, considering the policy of the country, then, in regard to slaves, it may well be doubted whether such cases were contemplated at the time the Act was passéd. Yet the terms are so broad and comprehensive, that they do, literally, embrace all cases of homicide. But the tendency of our modern legislation has been such as to promote a more favorable regard for the life of the slave, and we think the presiding Judge below was right in ordering the prohibition. The last clause of the Act, on a fair and liberal construction, applies as well to the trial of slaves as of white persons; “ and' the persons guilty of such striking or wounding, shall be tried by and before the same Court as if the deceased had suffered the injury in the same county or district in which he died.” Inasmuch, therefore, as the slave in question died in the parish of St. Philip and St. Michael’s, and the jurisdiction of justices and freeholders is local, there would have been the same .difficulty as existed at common law, in regard to the proper place of trial. All the analogies of the law are in favor of the construction given by the Court below; and the claim of the relator here is strengthened by the consideration that, if the accused were tried in St. Philip .and St. Michael’s, the verdict must have been unanimous. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed,

See 2 Strob. 286. An.

Elliott, for the appellant.

Elfe, contra.

The whole Court concurred.