Case ID: nc_53/html/0346-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Manly, J. Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE v. PETER, JESS, AND MILES, (slaves.)
    
    The master of a slave committed to jail on the warrant of a justice of th peace for an offence cognizable in the Superior Court is liable for jail-feef although the grand jury, upon an enquiry, may have refused to make - presentment against such slave.
    Motion for the taxation of costs, heard before Heath, J., a a Special Term of the Superior Court of Currituck.
    The slaves, Peter, Jess and Miles, the property of George T. "Wallace, were commited to the jail of Currituck county bj justices of the peace, under a criminal charge, which was no! bailable. They remained in jail until 14th of January, 1861 when a court of Oyer and Terminer was held for the said conn ty, and then the case of these slaves was submitted to the grand jury, who, after a careful examination, reported “ that they found nothing against them, and, therefore, declined to make any presentment against them.”
    Thereupon the said slaves were discharged at the expense of their owner, excluding the jail fees, the Court declining to render judgment for these. From which judgment, the solicitor for the State appealed.
    
      Attorney General, for the State.
    Ilinton, for the defendants.
   Manly, J.

The Revised Code, chapter, 107, sec. 69, subjects the owner of a slave to costs, in all cases, of Superior Court jurisdiction, where the slave, if a free man, would be liable.

Chapter 87, sec. 6, provides that every person committed to a public jail, by lawful authority, for any criminal offense or misdemeanor against the State, shall bear all reasonable charges for carrying and guarding him to jail, and also for his support therein, until released.

These two sections of the Code make the owner of the slaves, in the case before us, liable, it seems to us, for the jail-fees, and we think they ought to be included in the taxed costs. The case of the State v. Isaac, 2 Dev. 17, is a direct authority for this view. There is error, therefore, in the judgment below. It should have been for the costs including the jail-fees.

Per Curiam,

Judgment reversed.