Case ID: scl_1/html/0011-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      N. B.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

White against M’Neily and others.
    
    Where there are joint trespasses, a jury d^™agesfami ^i'm decora, U18t0 th,e <Ic~ gree and na= ture of the mitu-d by each offendeiv
    TRESPASS for entering plaintiff’s plantation with otners, and taking out of his dwelling and out-houses, household furniture, horses, and other articles, to the value of 1,000/. sterling. It appeared in evidence, that the defendants were present with a party of men, who had joined r 1 j ’ j the British, in September, 1780, when the plaintifF was plundered of household furniture to a considerable amount, , r- , . * ^ , , , . , ,,. , ‘ several or his horses taken away, and his dwelling-house burnt.
    For the defendant M’-Neily, several witnesses were called, particularly Alexander Scott, William Floyd and David Fee, who all testified that he was made a prisoner himself in his own house, compelled to deliver up his arms, and from thence was carried a prisoner to the plaintiff’s plantation, and there remained under a guard during the whole time the house and plantation were plundered. That he did not interfere or receive any part of the property so plundered oirtaken away ; on the contrary, that he was carried a prisoner from captain White’s, the plaintiff’s plantation, to Britton’s Ferry, fifteen miles distance, and from thence to major James’s plantation, ten miles further, and there discharged, and permitted to go home, after being three days a prisoner with the party.
    It was, however, proved, that in November following, he joined the British, and went into the garrison at George« Town, and did duty as a militia man in their service. From this circumstance principally, the jury were induced to doubt the principles of this defendant while a prisoner at the plaintiff’s plantation, and considered him as an aider, and abettor of their proceedings there. Graham and Edy were of the party who plundered the plaintiif, and therefore they gave plaintiff a
    Verdict for 400/. against M1-Nelly ; 200/. against Graham ; and 100/. against Edy.
    
    As this was the first case of trespass after the war, in which a jury severed and apportioned damages, it was at first doubted as a deviation from the old common law rule of joint trespassers, who being all equally guilty in the eye of the law, it was supposed jury could not sever. Rut after-wards, upon mature consideration, the point was given up, as it would be the means of preventing a multiplicity of suits, and at the same time put it in the power of the jury, to apportion at once the quantum of damages, agreeable to the degree of guilt of each trespasser. And it has since been relied on as a precedent.
   N. B.

This case has been relied upon ever since the determination at said town, and the principle of severing damages in joint actions according to the degree of injury committed by each defendant, and his ability to make compensation, has been sanctioned by the judges, as a correct and just one in all similar cases, down to the present day. It may, therefore, be considered as part of the common law of South-Carolina. — See the case of — v. Mary Lingard and others, vol. 2.