Case ID: scl_1/html/0015-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Grimke, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Administrator of Whitaker against English.
    in treasons and trocpass-the highest and lov/e-»to¿-fences, there are no acces-saries. AU are evein of them are liable for the nhoJe amount of the injury done.
    The definitive treaty at peace w ith Great JUri-tain, only exempts persons from cri-mhud prosecutions i<»v -of* fences against, the state; no?; from C(\M actions i«r da-mi ges MiS-lained hv pri* vate individuals.
    TRESPASS for entering the deceased Whitaker's plantation, and taking away sundry negroes, horses, cattle, hogs, corn, &c.
    The defendant, it seems, was one of those deluded citizens of America, who joined the British army in the late war, and accepted a commission in their militia service. In the year 1780, he went, or was sent with a party of men under his command, to the house of the deceased Whitaker, and took away the above articles to a large amount, and carried them off to the British garrison then at Camden. On the trial it was admitted, that he was only a subordinate officer, and acted by the orders of his superiors in command : and further, that no part of the property taken away, was appropriated to his private emolument, but carried to the use of the British army; and, therefore, as he was compelled to do what he did, it was said, it would be unjust to make him responsible. But
   Grimke, J.

held, that in treasons and trespasses, the highest and lowest offences, there are no accessaries or subordinate offenders. All are principals ; and wherever men go to do an unlawful act of this kind,. all and every oi them arc liable to the full extent; though where several are sued, a jury may apportion as they think just and proper . It is immaterial to what purpose the goods were applied ; the injury to the deceased’s estate was the only point for the consideration of the jury.

The definitive treaty of peace, in 1783, between Great Britain and this country, was next urged in behalf of the defendant; and it was contended, that die fourth clause of the treaty, which says “ There shall be no future confisca- “ tions or prosecutions, for any thing done during the war,” exempted the defendant from responsibility.

. But, said the judge, it has been decided over and over again, that the exemption in that article of the treaty only relates to criminal prosecutions at the suit of the state, for treasons, murders, trespasses, misdemeanors, &c. It does not exonerate or excuse persons from damages in civil suits, wherever they had injured their neighbour.

Verdict for plaintiff, 800/. 
      
       See the case of ¡Chite v. and others.* ante* page 12.