Case ID: scl_9/html/0314-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Colcock.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hargrove Arthur against David Wells.
    notauttorizeath! S3 thfr person Is e"° Song orbE
    Trespass for killing a negro.
    It appeared that the unfortunate subject of this suit ran off on the morning of the day on which he was killed, from his overseer, who was about to correct him; that he was seen by the defendant, who ordered him to stop; he, however, disregarded the command, and continued to run off from the defendant, until he reached the adjoining plantation, where he endeavoured to conceal himself under a fence,’ among some brushes, where he was shot by the defendant. The proof of his having been killed by the defendant, came out in the following manner: a Mr. Busby, who was the overseer of the plantation on which he was killed, hearing the report of the gun, went towards the place at which it was fired, and there'; discovered the negro. While at the spot he saw the defendant and one Perry advancing, heard the defendant say, “ he lies somewhere there.” Witness then asked who had killed the negro; the defendant replied, he had shot one — is he dead ? He said he had started hiip in the swamp, told him to stop, and that he thought him a runaway; that he rode up, and shot him through the fence; that he aimed to shoot him in his legs: he meant to catch him if he could. It appeared, that the bank was about three feet from the ditch, on. or near which the fence was, so that the defendant, standing in the road, could not have been more than ten feet from the negro when he shot; he was shot in the small of the back; one of the shot went nearly through his body; Perry said he had heard of three runaways having been taken up just before that. Upon this evidence the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of-dollars.
    The defendant moved for a new trial on the following grounds:
    1st. Because from the evidence the killing was accidental, and not intentional.
    2d. That from the policy of the law, and the various provisions of the act of the Legislature, in regard to slaves, the defendant ought to b§ acquitted.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Colcock.

It was contended, that the declarations of the defendant must be believed; and that, having declared he meant to shoot the-negro In his legs, he had shown that it was not his intention to kill. The rule in such cases is, that the whole of the declarations or confessions of a person shall be received that is given in evidence ; but nothing would be more absurd than to say all w'hich may be said, by one situated as the defendant was, should be believed.

The declarations of the defendant in regard to his intentions, are contradicted by the facts proven: he was within ten steps of the negro, and if he intended to shoot him in the legs, he certainly might have effected his object. It is not presumable, that at that short distance he would have hit him in the back, if he had intended to shoot him in the legs. But the decía-, ration itself shows, that he fired with deliberation, and did intend to hit him: he is then am swerable for all the consequences which did ensue, unless he was justified by the law in shooting*

It is clear, beyond doubt, that the act was intentional; and it gives me pleasure to declare, that the act is not authorized by any law of the state. The law does not authorize the killing of a negro, except in cases where the person, attempting to take one, is endangered by actual resistance, as by assaulting or striking.

It may be the policy of a country, holding slaves, to subject them to the partial control of the freemen of the country, when not under the immediate control of their masters. But it can never be considered politic to subject a valuable species of property to the disposal of any unprincipled, unfeeling man in society; nor is it less impolitic with regard to the slaves themselves — for where there is no protection to life, there is no incitement to action. 1 am against the motion.

Grimké, Mott, Cheves, Johnson, and Gantt, J. concurred.