The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1836-1851, 1849-10-10
From the Columbia Telegraph,
DIR SLAVE LAWS,

report Of case arising under the conslrur.nn
and administration Of our nrgro law, which Is
full of interest and Importance.
Our limits viii mol allnw us In give the case
in fall: we shall therefore lay beE,re our read
ers the s,s,r rn,rnt "f Maj. Lrgs, nnc Of the pros
ecu,inc Magistrates, aud the decree Of Jul &c
O'Neall. -h',erating the prisoner.
I'm order that this case may lie fully ui'.Irr-
stood, will simply state what was in proof be-
Eore the Court. |, appta thar Jesse llnghr!,
a free nerson of color. was charged with hayiag
returned to this State, after having lrit 1t, con
trafy 10 the laws Of this Stat" now in tnrcs.--
Complaint was made before Elias Wal. Esq.
"A Court of frerholdcrs was organized on The
10Th day of May, ls49; Jesse Huchey was
tried and found guilty, and ordered 10 leave the
State within fifteen days-a second complaint
WAS made before Elias Wall, Esq. Of the sec.
Snt} }ofcnce-under the act of the Assembly OF
1895. a similar Court was organized. Jesse
Huphry yswas tried and found guilty OF the
scrond offence-was sente need BY the Court TO
bewhipped, which sentence was duly executed
Oh the day Of trial, VIZ: The 5h day of July,
Is4e, and ordered to leave the State within ID
days thereafter. ~, .r
ytomplain, was made before J. w. Tucker,
Esu.. on the l7th day Of August, ls4o, against
Jssse flushey for third offence under the Act.
A Cnnr, ai-fssehnlders was organized on the
oath day of August, ls4s-Jesse ifnshey was
tried and found not garlty, as there was no pro-
before the Court that he had either left or re-
turned into the State. and was discharged.
On The 25,h day Of August, ls4S, complaint
was made before me against Jesse Hushey foe
The third offence warrant was issued; Jesse
ffushey was arrested on the 24ih day OF August,
ls49, and committed Tor trial. A Court was
organized on the 9th day OF Angst, 1876
Jesse Hushey was ,risd-it was in proof before
the Court by Joseph Wall, Henry Dofid, Moses
Foster, and II. J. Dean, ,ha, Jesse Hnghey had
returned into or had been seen in The State on
or abou, the Isl of August, and on The 10Th aud
Goth Of August, lS49.
a plea was offered to the Magistrate by de-
fendant's Attorney, and a motion made for the
discharge Of JESSE Hughey, upon the grounds
that the trial and proceedings were Illegal
that Jesse Hughey had been tried for the same
offence by Court organized by J. W. Tucker,
ESQ, on the 24ih day of August. ls49, and hy
that Court he was acquitted and discharged
and that he ought not to lie tried again for the
same offoure. 1t was urged and argued by
counsel for the State, that Jesse Hnghey was
NOT now on trial before this Court for the sa,nc
offence as charged before the Court organized
by j. w. Tucker, Esq, on The 24th OF August,
ls4g; that complaint was made on the 18th OF
August, ls49, against Jesse Hughey, Tor "itrn-
ccs committed previous to that datc-,hat he
now stood charged on trial for offences commit
ted subsequent to that date, to wit. on the l9'h
and 2O,h days Of August, ls49.
Iss The motion made hy the defendants Attorney
was overruled, first, because did not consider
r The charges The same, or that Jesse Hughey was
On trial before me for the same offences charged
by J. w. Tucker. ESQ.,; second. because did
not consider that Magistrate had the right or
power 20 discontinue, stop or qnash any lndIct.
ment, when the party or parties, after legal
Investigation Of The charges preferred, have
been regularly committed for trial.
The pr00r bcfurr the Ccuri Vas conclusive
that Jesse Hughey had been tried. convicted,
and notified TO leave The State for the first and
secoud offences under the aci-that for the sec.
ond offence he had been whipped--for the third
offence the present Court could entertain no
doubt Of his guilt, as it was clearly proved that
he did return into the State after legal trials
and notice-no doubt either was entertained hy
the Court with regard 10 the law in this matter
The only possible question bel"rc The Court
was the plea urged by defendants Attorney of
the legality Of the trial, which was that Jesse
Hnehey had heen tried by legal Court, or.
ganized by J. w. Tucker, Esq. OIL the 2lth
day of August, ls49, under The third charge
rha, he was acquitted by said Court-ihat he
was now on trial for the same case and same
slsencr. The Court held and decided that it
was not the same case or the same offence
that Jesse Hnghey was tried before J. W.
Thicker. Esq, for offences committed before the
9th day Of August, lS49-tbat he was now
mon trial for offences committed since the l7lh
day Of August, l549, consequently tha, it was
not one and The same case, but distinct and
separate offrnce under the act.
The Court being fully convinced from the
testimony before tho Court Of his guilt under
tie third charge, and of the legality of the pro
ceeding. had against him in the first and second
trials, could not do otherwise III m find the de-
tudant, Jesse Hughey, guilty Of The third Of:
fence.
G. w. II. LEoG, Magistrate.
On hearing Mr.. Edwards for the Writ of
PFohibiiion and the Magistrate s report, must
order rhe Writ of Prohibition.
The trial and arqnital before Esquire Tuck
or is bar to any proceedings against The de.
fendant for violating the act Of 1885. 1t was
the duty Of Esquire Legg, on the production Of
the record Of acqui.tal before Esquire Tucker.
to have supported the defendants plea in bar
and discharged him. For Justices Court is
as much bound by legal rules as the Cour, of
Sessions.
kis a mere eva<ion 10 talk about the offence
not being the same, becntme this prosecution
was commenced after the former trial and that
the defendan, was within the State two days
after il. The offence is that the defendant did