Case ID: va-col-dec_2/html/0B38-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The King ag’t Moore
    [Note by W. G-] (Hop. 17 in Myers’s Copy.) Jeff. Rep. 8. S. C.
   An Information was brought -against the Deft, upon the Act of 5 & 6 Geo. 2. laying a duty upon Slaves for not transmitting to the Collector of the duty’s a List of the Slaves by him sold imported in the ship A.

The Deft. Offered as Witnesses the Master and Steward of the Ship to whom Mr. Attorney Objected as parties in interest having Slaves of their own aboard But the Court seemed to think it no Objection And sayed at the Bar if two are concerned in a trespass and one is Indicted the other may be a Witness for or against him And by Sr. J. R. If one is sued for any matter for which another is also chargeable that other person may be a Witness.

The Jury found a Special Verdict.

That the Act was passed 1 July 1732 about four in the Afternoon [36] (5) and the Ship came toan Anchor off Back River the said 1 July about two leagues from the Shore Came into the Capes about twelve and came to Anchor ketween seven and eight and could have got up to York if they had had a Pilot On the second of July the Ship got into the mouth of York on the third to York Town and enter’d the fifth.

2 Questions were made upon the Verdict 1st Whether the day of passing the Act was exclusive or inclusive 2d Whether this was an Importation. The words of the Act are “ From and after the passing of this Act'there shall be paid &c. for all Slaves imported or brought into this Colony and Dominion for sale &c.” As to the first for the King it was insisted there could be no fraction of a day And the Act being passed the 1 July that whole day must be included And Clayton’s Case 5 rep. 1 was Cited.

Hopkins for Deft, agreed there was no fraction of a day but insisted the day of passing the Act was excluded and consequently this Importation was before the Act & Cited Clayton’s Case supra and the Case in Dyer 5 Eliz. 218 there cited Which seemed to be in point.

Also cited Holt’s Opinion in Rob’t Howards Case 2 Salk. 625. & Lord Rocking-ham ag’t Oxenden 2 Salk 578.

As to the 2d. Insisted for the King that the Place where the Ship Anchored 1 July was not within any port & so no Importation To which it was answered There are no ports laid out here as in England And that coming within the Capes with an Intent to come strait to Virginia is an Importation.

Judgm’t for Deft.

[ Vide Hopkins Argument in Libro parvo. 84. 2 Hop.

[Note by W. G-.] (This is not in Myers’s copy.)