Case ID: scl_25/html/0072-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Gloria, per O’Neall, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The City Council of Charleston v. John Brandt.
    In an action for a penalty, under a City Ordinance against negroes being permitted assemble or loiter in any shop longer tban while actually engaged in lawful trading, proof that negroes remained for two hours in and about the defendant's premises, threw on Mm the burden of showing that they were not there unlawfully.
    Before his Honor the Recorder of the City of Charleston, , April, 1839.
    Sum. pro. to recover a penalty of twenty dollars, for violation of a City Ordinance, of November 26, 1836, Clause 22, viz. “ That no negroes or persons of color, whether bond or free, shall be permitted to assemble or loiter in any shop, or in or about the door thereof, and shall not be allowed to sit down or remain therein longer than while actually engaged in purchasing such articles they may be lawfully authorized to purchase.”
    The evidence -was, that on Sunday morning there was a concourse of negroes about defendant’s shop; that they continued in and about it during nearly two hours that witness observed them. Witness could not see,‘but heard those inside laughing and talking, and supposed there were eight or ten of them. Defendant kept his gate closed, and, from time to time, opened it to let negroes in or out. Amongst others, he let out certain negroes described in the process.
    The Hon, Recorder charged the jury that the evidence raised such a presumption against the defendant, as imposed on him the necessity of proving that the negroes about his premises were not there unlawfully.
    Verdict for the City.
    The defendant appealed, for error in his Honor’s charge; but,
   Gloria, per O’Neall, J.,

held that the jury had been properly instructed.