Case ID: scl_34/html/0077-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Fbost, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Caleb Boone v. John W. Lyde.
    
    The fact of an overseer having snapped his gun at the negro of his employer, with the intention to shoot, merely because the negro ran when he was about to whip him, was held to be sufficient cause to justify the employer in putting an end to his written contract with the overseer, which stipulated that he was to govern the negroes with humanity and kindness.
    Where there was a written contract between a planter and his overseer, by which it was stipulated that the overseer was to govern the negroes by the planter’s direction, the fact of the overseer having insulted the planter, for objecting to his manner of working the crop, was held to be sufficient to authorize the planter in putting an end to the contract.
    
      Before Evans, J. at Darlington — Bpring Term, 1848.
    It appeared that the plaintifF was the overseer of defendant, for the year 1845. There was a written contract, by which it was stipulated that Boone was to govern the negroes by ly¿e>s direction, and with humanity and kindness. Some time before the 30th of April, it appeared from Boone’s con-fessj011j that he was about to flog one of the negro men: the negro ran, and he snapt his gun at him, and said if he had fired, he would never have run again. The negro was roguish, but not insubordinate. On the 30th April, Lyde gave Boone notice in writing that he had employed one Wilson to attend to the business, and did not expect his services any longer. On the 3d May, Lyde, in company with two or three gentlemen, went to the plantation; when they arrived at the overseer’s house, Boone was not there; he was sent for, but not found. Lyde and his friends then rode into the field where the negroes were at work; they were hoeing cotton, which had come up badly ; Lyde disapproved of it, and so did the gentlemen who were with him. Lyde sent the ne-groes into another field to work the corn; when they were returning towards the house they met Boone. Lyde told him what he had done. Boone got into a great rage and got a rail to strike Lyde. In the course of the conversation which was had between the parties, Lyde said that Boone had insulted him when he objected to the manner in which Boone worked the crop, and Boone said Lyde wanted him to knuckle to him too much. Lyde behaved coolly and without passion, and Boone’s conduct was very outrageous, so much so that the Rev. Mr. Wilson, who had gone there with the hope of being able to reconcile the difference between them, gave it up as hopeless. Lyde demanded the keys, which Boone gave up, but refused to give up the house, the possession of which he retained until the end of the year. Lyde put another in charge of the plantation, and so the matter ended.
    Boone had had but little experience in the management of negroes before this, but since that time has established a good reputation as an overseer, and the witnesses said he was passionate, but they would not suppose he was a cruel man. It was in evidence that Lyde told Huggins, Boone’s father-in-law, whilst they were in treaty, that his negroes were unruly, and he wanted a man who would ^ govern them. Wilson (Boone’s successor) said Lyde’s conduct towards him was correct, and that he did not perceive any fault in Boone’s management of the crop.
    This action was to recover the stipulated wages, $150, for the whole year j Lyde did not object to paying for the time Boone stayed, so the only question was whether Lyde had discharged Boone on sufficient ground to authorize him to put an end to the contract.
    The Circuit Judge stated the law applicable to the case, and told the jury that if Lyde discharged Boone for snapping his gun at a negro merely for running, with intent to shoot him, he was not only right, but it would have been a dereliction of his duty, as the master of slaves, not to have manifested his disapprobation of so barbarous an act, by dismiss-v ing his overseer from his service. There was no proof when this was done, but the witnesses said they understood it had occurred very shortly before the dismissal. The occurrences of the 3d of May were, in his judgment, amply sufficient to authorize the dismissal, but they were not the cause of it. Lyde had before given Boone notice to quit, and had gone down that day to demand the keys, but they might serve as specimens of Boone’s temper, and shew the truth of what Lyde said, that Boone “ had insulted him when he objected to his manner of working his crop.”
    The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, for the whole year’s wages.
    The defendant moved the Court of Appeals for a new trial, on the following grounds :
    1. Because the plaintiff did not establish his right to recover the wages for the whole year, under the written contract between the parties.
    2. Because the plaintiff, by delivering up the keys to the defendant, and claiming the use of the dwelling house only, in which he remained the whole year, assented and agreed to put an end to the contract.
    3. Because the plaintiff did not treat the negroes of the defendant with humanity and kindness, and did not follow his direction in the management of the plantation, which under the said contract he was bound to do.
    4. Because the conduct of the plaintiff was in other respects sufficient to justify the defendant in putting an end to the contract; and as such, that the plaintiff is entitled to recover only for the time that he remained in the employment of the defendant, and it is respectfully submitted that his Honor erred in not so charging the jury.
    5. Because the jury, instead of finding for the whole amount of the contract, were only authorized to find for the amount due under said contract, for the time that the plaintiff remained in the employment of the defendant, and. that the verdict in this respect was capricious and against the law and evidence.
    
      Harllee and Dudley, for the motion.
    
      A. J. Dargan, contra.
   Fbost, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This Court entirely concurs with the Circuit Judge in hi» instructions to the jury; and little need be added in support of their manifest justice and propriety. The plaintiff’s attempt upon the life of the defendant’s slave is proved by his own declarations. If the gun had effected his fatal design, so coolly avowed ofter the occurrence, and he had been found guilty of murder, the judgment of the law for that offence could not have been averted. It cannot be questioned that for such an attempt to kill one of his slaves, the defendant was warranted in dismissing the plantiff from his employment.

The conduct of the plaintiff on the 3d of May, afforded another sufficient cause for his dismissal. In no employment does the agent assume to supersede the authority of his employer. There is no reason why an overseer charged with the difficult office of governing slaves, should be permitted to do so. The right of the 'owner to control the overseer in the management of his own property, is just and proper, and should be maintained. Because the defendant changed the employment of the slaves, without consulting, the plaintiff, he was assailed by the plaintiff with opprobious language and threatened with dangerous violence. The condition of the planter would be, indeed, defenceless, if, for the wrongs and indignities to which the defendant was subjected, he were not justified in dismissing his overseer. The motion is granted.

Richardson, J. O’Neall, J. and Evans, J. concurred.

Motion granted.