New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1847-12-01
Importauf slave Case.


An important case has lately been decided in the
U. 5. Circuit Court at Columbus, Ohio. Mr.. Pas
ri-h Of Sandusky City was sued by Peter DriskelI
OF Kentucky for harboring and concealing certain
fugitive slaves and for obstrUcting officer in bis
efforts to arrest them. The action was brought 70
recover the penalty Of $500 for each Of the above
offences, as prescribed by the &C, Of 1924. The
case was ably argued by J. II. Thompson and II
stanberry, Esqs for the plaintiff, and by J. w An
drews and 5. P. Chase, Esqs. for the defendant -
Judge McLean in charging the Jury, laid down
the following propositions
l. O1siruciions must be made knowingly and willing
u. Toe fendsut must have known that the slaves
were escaping fugii.ves from labor from smother state
> To constitute hsrborng or conceaing there must
te ~ intent eude the vgsncc OF the master After
hsf boring Is shows toe burden Of proof IL thrown on
the defendant to * plan it meaning.
g. An obstruction under The law implies orce-t need
not be manual
Bus one penalty lies for hnderns or ob,trucdng. or
hsrboine sud sug II the oasnce BE- done ~ one
aet-phethsr one or msny slaves are thereby pro
.ected
In Ohio every person, without regard 10 color. IL
presumed T. be free But where service IL due In Ken.
lucky II must be tested by thu lsss Of Kentucky.
proof hzs been shown that plaintiff s entitled 10 the
labor Jane and Harrison Gsrretson, II IL sufficient 10
cresie THE presumption that they have escaped from that
lhbor Tibet they there held In state of slavery 10
strongi, indicative Of such position of affairs.
Ire important fact 70 establish Ia hat Col NJ at
tempted 10 make the arrest He must have spprsed
the def, ndeu that these escsp siayesihst be
u.s. authorized 70 make the orrest snd that he did At.
tempt h. make the arrest, and was prevented - the
defendant Unless these facts sre brought home 70
the knowledge % the defendant the plsinuh cannot
recover II Col Mhchels statement ls true-tne csse
l. made out II his creei5iity 10 destroyed by tbs
witnesses for the defendant It mainly falls TO the
ground
7 IRE statement OF Parrish went for nothing ex-
cept 80 far rs IL sanctioned and reststed by Nit
chel Drskeis statements rest much on those OF Nit
cheil-since Mitchell the actor. II Mitchell then
had denied the action would far to impesch the re.
collection OF Driskol Miss Gusin's contradiction OF
the staicmen, OF both Mitchell and Driskel with re-
gard 70 the pushing waving the slaves into the house
BY Parrish and on other points, Is to oe considered by
the jury.
hsrboring be constituted In part by an in,eu
ton 10 defeat the claims of he master II the retaining
OF the slaves until evening was with that inientonthe
defendant has harbored them II the understanding
as that they remained for fair trial he hiss not hsr'
bored toeuI.
O. This 10 penal offence and ght be prosecuted by
ind tnieut The Jury will require strict preei but II
such proof s made the law musi DO administered
10 Baiboring and concesng are synonomous terms
In the statute.
IL The law must no, be so executed prevent the
exercise OF Ordinary humanity iowsrd iusives IL Is
mertoriaus act on pert OF citizen OF OHIO 10 see
that such ugtives have fsr trsl II he do not 20 be
yond the law aud make the forms OF tho law the med
uins Tor the inhcton of injustice upon the master
IL We must not depsrt from the law and the consu
tuon to enbsk upon the oceAn OF vague reasoning OF
onjciure This would DO to lose Ourselves in tbs ma
zes Of uncertainty. The law - II Is must be admins
teri by The Court sud the jury AZ the fecis OIL tne
csse are so mus, the jury hnd.
The OHIO State Journal, from which We derive
our information says;
The Jury returned verdict for the plains-hndire
the ndant guilty both of hsroorDg the slaves and
obs,ructing the MASTER. Two penalties OF i've hundred
dollars each srs therefore assessed against Sir Parrish
The obstruction consisted in The CONDUCT Of Mr. Par
rsh Al the gate The harboring In permitting the save
II renisin in bis house until nigh, ia-sn intent 4
elude the the vigilance Of the master being Inferred
ION Tuesday morning Messrs Chsse and Andrews
moved 10 oct ascs verdict aud grant new tfia on
the ground thst the jury had returned contrary TO The
evidence. Mr. Stanberry opposed the motion