Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1843-07-28

by a citizen of Kentucky to recover the value oi n
slave. who had been harbored and concealed. and
aided in escaping by the defendant, citizen of
Ohio. The merits ofthe whole case may be- gath
erred from the decision of the Judge, which is sub
joined
The facts substantially these The slaves at nine
o'clock on Saturday night 2ith April lsl2 the
domic, the Ohio rver, in Boone county, kentucky
aud proved BY paro testimony have been his
by birth aud others by purchase. On Sunday
ing they missed, and OF the day
OF them found in the Jail CoVngon opposite Gin
cinnat
proved BY several witnesses early Sunday
morning the defendants covered wagon with negro div
OF the uguves in 'front.' drawn by horses and
closed before and behind, Sharon, Ham,
on county. Ohio, driving along the road leading from Gin
cinna Lebanon; that being stopped by OF the
witnesses the negro ordered by from within,
known the witness that of the defendant drive
witness; that the horses accordingly started full
throwing aside witnesses horse; that he and his
panion, being well mounted chase and after running
several hundred yards forced the against fence
and stopped them. that hceupOn the defendant aud
raj OF the plaintiffs OF the wagontwO Of
the above, together with the driver fled into adjoining
field; that OF the three, being called, back that
the other lcd: that ct them been
ed by plaintiff, but the third, named Andrew and worth
$780, has since been heard of that defendant during
the melee, repeatedly used expressions admitting his
knowledge that the negroes slaves-somo Of the wit
stating thai defendant when the seizure took place.
in questions put him. said that "he knew the
slaves but they born frecothers that
he only said hey free meg; and
another that At different time he said "he did know
they slaves-he knew mark for slave" Ii was
further proved that the defendant admitted that he had
stayed with friend Walnut Hills the night before and
that going three o'clock in the morning his
for home he found the negroes there and they got
into his wagon; that he started thus carly order have
the cool OF the morning the then being wam that
defendant also stated that the negroes wore brought his
wagon by Mr. Alleys that defendant had also eNpcssedt
right his opinion and slaves escapinG that seven OF
the slaves recnpurcd taken back Covngton without
mn gfrnf With eri
cate and there lodged in Jail and that plaintiff had been
compelled under law OF Kentucky, pay $3.50 reward
TO the captors and $3.50 for other expenses
admitted that the persons who seized the negroes had
previous authority from the other legal power
do.
Judge Mclean charged the jury follows:
The attention and patience with which have heard this
case gentlemen of the jury show that appreciate its
portance' and doubt that in deciding you will follow
the dictates OF an unbiased Judgment Here the Judge
stated the evidence.
The plaintiff not seek redress Tor the inury complain
ed OF, general principle legal equitable of the
common law lie relies the constitution and the OF
congress as the foundation OF MS right.
The I'd section OF the 18th article OF the constitution de-
cares that no person held service labor state,
under the laws thereof escaping another shall
sequence OF law regulation therein be discharged
from such service or labor but shall be delivered up claim
OF the party whom such labor may be due"
And the Sd and 18th sections of the OF congress OF the
18th February 1888 above cited, define particular
the rights of the and provide for him modes OF
dress.
ne 'th ana cth counts which rOvCr, have been
abandoned These counts state that the slaves
ally lost IN Boone county, Kentucky by the plaintiff and
that they came into the OF the defendant, citizen
Ohio Now, the slaves left the service Of the plaintiff
with his any other mode except fuguycs
from labo and the possession OF the defendant
as alleged. the plaintiff has right their services and
still less 10 from the defendant their value.
Tho 9th which charges tine defendant with having
rescued the slaves, after they seized by the agents
the plaintiff has also been abandoned. There evidence
which tends, in any degree TO show a
the unhp fefi
OF the 9Th sec OF the act, that he knowingly and willingly
INSTRUCTED and hindered the Of the plaintiff sciznC
or arres,ing the fugitves That the defendant resisted
the utmost OF his power the arrest Of the negroes by Heer
man and Hargrave undoubted. But this did the deten
dant violate the lawl The persons who made the
had no authority from the pa,nuti And the obsiruc-
ton or hndrance 10 the by the claimant his agent
Attorney that ncurs the penalty under the above clause
the statute and also subjects the party damages for the
injury The resistance Of the defendant the
by HetfeTman and Hagrave was in violation of
statute They acted without authority and had legal night
therefore, TO make the
But 1t from the evidence that the plaintiff when
the negroes returned ratified the OF Heiferman
and Hargraye in making the And here the question
arises whether subsequent ratification egaze the
rest That the subsequent ratification legazes the original
transaction, is general principle agencies. And in this
case u is unquestonaby good between the plaintiff and
ms agents But the inquiry whether such subsequent
uhcauOn can have relation back 10 affect the acts Of
the defendant Can tsO change the of the detcn-
denrs acts - subject him penalty, which
incurred prior 10 such ratification. Most clearly
queniy, must be construed strictly IL is within the
legislative power to make penal which not so
when It was done Much less such effect result
from the ratification by the plaintiff in the present
We must look TO the other counts in the declaration
which charge the defendant with harborng and conceal
the Negroes he had notice that they were fugives
from labor. Ii the evidence shall these counts
the plaintiff cannorecoyer The plaintiff bound show
that the defendant harbored concealed the negroes a
ter he had notice that they fugitves labor
And first TO the fact of notice.
In kentucky and every other State where slavery
toned every cOored person presumed be slave. This
presumption from the nature Of their institutions and
from the fact that with few pons all the coored persons
within those States slaves. On the principle eve
~ person in Ohio, any other free State without regard
to color presumed 10 be free No presumption therefore,
ARISES from the color OF these ueycs alone, that the de-
PENDANT had notice that they were slaves.
notice IN writing TO the defendant necessary,
any special from the plaintiff his agent or aor
these negroes he had full knowledge Of the fact however
acquired, that they slaves and iugtyes from labor
is enough to charge him with notice You satisfy
yourselves this point by examination OF the evidence
The fact must be clearly proved and 1t be proved it
would be roproach to the law and the administration Of
Justice to hold that the notice insufficient.
What shall constitute harboring concealing within
the statute. This offence Is committed, my Judge
mcni, by treating the fugitive with the ordinary principles
OF humanity. iOu may with him relieve his hun
ger aud thirst, without violating the law. Ia short you
may do any act whchdOes show defeat the
claims OF the But any which shall be
marked IN its character, only 10 show intention
eudc the vigilance Of the MASTER but calculated attain
such object harbong of the fugitive the
statute. Its clearly within the mschofwas designed
prevent.
To constitute the offence under the statute il Is not ne
cessary incacerate the fugitive dungeon room;
he be taken IN wagon and conveyed from the shore Of the
Ohio 70 Ee shore Of Lake Erie which enables him
cape into CANADA, suppose could doubthat the in
diydual had made himself responsible And Il carrying
the fugitive the whole u this would incur the penal
~, on the principle the conveyance of hn such part
OF tine route shall the loss Of hs the
would equally incur liability.
The damages claimed by the plaintiff consist Of the sum
Of four hundred aud fly dollars pad q reward Ilcf
cuan and Harguye and other expenses, amounting In
the whole about hundred dollars. And also he claims
the value Of the services OF Andrew who has been lost
% the plaintiff Those services estimated by the
be worth six hundred dollars IL said that this
could have been realized By the plaintiff for the boy
Under the statute you will observe that penalty Of five
hundred dollars incurred for hnrbpnng conccalng
fugitive, which the party injured may recover but the pre-
sent action not Tor this penalty. In this the plaintiff
b only omiNed to dlmaRes hc has nctnaH