The Weekly register., 1843-08-05
Judge Mclean charged the jury as

y
the jury, show that you appreciate its
importance; and | doubt not, that in de-
Gliding 1t, you will follow the dictates of
alunbiassed judgment. Here the judge |
'restated the evidence which may be
omitted, as it is stated above. +.
:: The plaintiff does not seek redress fer
the injury complained of, on any gene
raj principle, legal or equitable, Of the
common law. He relies on the constitu-
ton as the foundation of his right
The Cd sec. of the 4th article of the
constitution declares that, "no, person
held to service or labor in one state, pn-
der the laws thereof, escaping into ano-
! ther, SHALL. in consequence of any law or
regulation therein, be discharged. from
such service or. labor; but shall be de-
livered up On claim Of the party to whom
such service or labor may be DUE" =
And the Sd and 4th sections ofthe act
of Congress of the 18th Feb. 1898, as
above cited, define more particularly the
rights ofthe master and provide for him
modes of redress. 3 ss.-s
The 7th and 9th counts, which were
in trover have been abandoned. These
counts state that the slaves were casu-
ally lost, in Boone county, Kentucky, By
the plaintiff, and that they came into the
possession Of the defendant, citizen Of
Ohio. Now if the slaves left the SER
vice of the plaintiff with the consent or
in any other mode except as fugtives
from labor, and came into the possession
Of the defendant as alleged, the plaintiff
has noright to their services, and still
less to recover from the defendant their
value.
The 9th connt which charges the de-
fendant with having rescued the slaves,
, after they were seized by the agents Of
the plaintiff, has also been abandoned
There is no evidence which tends, in any
degree, TO show q rescue. a..
The 9Th count charges the defendant
under the first clause of the 4th section
! of the act, that ,he knowingly and vii
lingly obstructed and hindered the a
I gents of the plaintiff in nseizing or arrest
ing the fugitives. That the defendant
resisted, to the utmost of his power the
arrest Of the negroes by Hefferman and
Hargrave is undoubted. But in this did
. the defendant violate the law? The
: persons who made the seizure had nc
authority from the plaintiff. And it is
l" the obstruction or hindrance to the ar
, rest, by the claimant, ..hisagsnt or attor
ney, that incurs the penalty under tAe
y above clause of the statute and also sub
+ jects the party to damages for the inju
ry. The resistance then of the defend
. ant to the arrest by Heferman and Har'
Ii grave, was In no sense a violation of the
Q statute. They acted without authority
{ and had no legal right, therefore, Il
/ make the arrest. ~ - g
But it seems from the evidence thu
IS the plaintiff when the negroes were re
/ turned ratified the. acts of Hefermar
" and Hargrove in making the arrest
And here the question arises whether ;
/ subsequent ratification can legalize the
'e arrest. That the subsequent ratiica
le ton legalizes the original transaction, i
le, general principle ia agencies. And il
I. this case it is unqnestiouably gcod as be
e tween the plaintiff and his agents. Bu
e, the inquiry is, whether such subsequen
a ratification can have relation back, so a
: to affept,the acts OF the defendant. Cal
g it,so change the nature of the defendant
4. acts as to subject him to a penalty, whicl
70 was no:aincurred prior to such ratifca
T. ton. Most clearly itcannot. The sta
h tute under consideration is a penal on
10 and, consequently, nuss be construe
strictly4, It's not within the Legislative
10, power to make an act penal which wa
,e not SO when it was done.a. Much less cal
y such an effect result from the ratification
= by the plaintiff in the present case.
be We must 10 k to the other counts
o the declaration which charge the defer
dant with harboring and concealing th
a. negroes, after he had notice that the
L.. were fugitives from labor. IL the ley
Jo,,o1 el,,II ,,of c,,st, -, thoso ,o,,r.- II,