Daily Richmond times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1849-1850, 1850-06-28

Fugitive SIaueS--Ihe Io0d hc7totons'
| The following 10 d ruler report than we gave
Yesterday of the important fugitive slave case re-
Gently decided in Iowa. 1t does not appear that
Judge Dyer instructed the jury, as Judge Mclean
did, in the Indiana case, that the owner of fugi-
| tive slave has the right to recapture him in free
State and carry him home, and that any person
moesting him, while so engaged, is liable to da-
IMAGES. But it may be inferred that such nstruc-
tons were given. We are glad that the defend
ants propose to carry the case up to the Supreme
Court. distinct decision of that tribunal, that
those who aid and abet the escape of slaves from
their owners, or who harbour and conceal them when
escaped, or who forcibly rescue them after recap
ture, make themselves liable to the extent of the
value of the slaves and the loss of time and money
incurred in recovering them, would have most
wholesome effect upon the public mind of both
sections of the Union.
From the Burlingt ton State Gazette" June H.
Missouri SLAVE CAsE-$2, 800 DAMAGEs.-At the
term of the United States district court held in this city
last week, Judge Dyer presiding, the case OF Ruel
Daggs, plaintiff Us. Elihu Frazier and others, defend
ants came for trial. The suit was brought
ton OF respass in the for harborng and conceal
ing the plaintiffs slaves, opposing their arrest and res
The circumstances of this are familiar to most of
our readers Nine slaves made their escape from Mr.
Daggs in Clark county, Missouri, in lS4S, four of whom
| were subsequently recapured. The other five
recovered These slaves secreted and assist
| ed TO escape by sundry citizens OF Salem, in Henry
county, Of this State, and Mr. Daggs brought suit
against of those most actively engaged in the al
| fair for the value OF the negroes
The argued at length, and with much
| bility, by Mr.. Rorer (who employed but few
days before the trial came on) ortne plaintiff and Mr.
I,Il NJ Marfnp Tor rafnn IonfC NnnIn f tho
evidence taken the part OF the plaintiff by attorneys
| previously employed was ruled out by the court
occount or ntormaity, &c but enough was ELECTED
on the trial to secure him damages The ury-one OF
the most intelligent set of men probably ever empan
| need in lowa-rered for but briet space OF time,
aud on returning brought in verdict of $4,000 for
| the plaintiff, with costs OF suit The costs, we learn
will probably not fall much short Of $1,000 more.
1t has been said by southern and represent
atives the floor OF Congress, at the present
session. that matter how clear the proof verdict
could not be obtained in any free State in the Union.
| We have ever thought this charge unjust and now
point tohe verdict in the above alluded to- show
that, far as Iowa concerned it is utterly untound
ed. Whatever the sentiment OF our people may be in
relation to slavery in the abstract there is dspo
stion to interfere with the rights of the citizens of other
States acquired under the constitution. The act of
Congress authorizing the reclamation OF slaves escap
ing from service is recognised binding, and public
opinion will not sanction any attempt to evaoe its pro-
visions.
motion for new trial was overued by the court.
| Notice OF bill OF exceptions then given by the
attorneys for the defendants with the view OF taking
the up to the Supreme Court of the United
| States.