Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-10-07
OFFICIAL,


James E. Parker and wife vs. william II. Thompson.
The plaintiffs brought this action to recover the
| value Of a slave.
There are tE, counts in the declaration; one in
case, aud the ether in troVer UpOu the plea Of not
gCily there we're verdict and judgment for the de>
feudani; new trial was refused, and the plaintiffs
have appealed in error 70 this Court
The proof shows that the negro man Of the plain
tih-, was hired 10 the defendant for the term Of
/ twelve months-that the hiring was general, and
that this negro worked with the other slaves Of the
/ defendant upon the plantation. The negroes usu-
| ally got up about day light, and we're employed in
feeding the stock until breakfast; then they went TO
/ the farm and work ed there. After supper they usu
ally worked until or 10 o'clock, sometimes sack
ing dried fruit, peas, SC and sometimes they gun-
ed and bailed cotton; at other times they fenced.
I Il was defendants order fer them to work every
night except when 1t rsiRed OF showed but to stop
work al o'clock and on two occasions much later,
but the slave in controversy was not with them
The proof alse shows, that it was not usual for
Farmers IN that neghborhood to work so late the
defendant worked unless il was in saving fodder or
hay At that business it was customary to work IS
late as or 10 O'Clock al night, and sometimes later.
It also 10 proof that defendant did not live upon
bis fsrm-Was only there occasionally once in every
or Weeks-that be was reasonable and prudent
man and good master That his overseer tvas
kind, prudent man. and iDdugent to the negroes "
The Overseer did not attend the negroes after night
This was usually done by one Of the clerks in the
store, Who worked himself with the negroes and did
much either Of them, without injury to himself
On the 10Th September 1852, the slave in contro-
versy cent out with others to take Up fodder
They told to bind up the fodder and stack it in
the field.
Instead Of doing so, the negro in question, and
another, concluded to haul the fodder dis ance Of
about l5O yards to the barn, in doing which he ac-
cdentally fell from the wagon, and vas SO much in
jured that he died in few minutes Afterwards
This occurred between 9 and 10 o'clock at night.
The negro worth thousand twelve hun
dre2 dollars. This embraces al the proof in the
cause that is regarded at all material
That portion Of the charge Of the Court to which
exception is taken is IS follows:
THAT if the jury should fad that the defendant
hired the plaintiffs slave by general hiring. be
would then have right 10 employ him about bis
general business, and although they should nd that
be required the slave to labor to an unreasonable
extent, and ct unusual md unreasonable times and
in manner and to an extent that prudent owner
would not require Of his own slave, even that would
not be q conversion"
And if they found that was the case, and the
slave came to his death by his own aet-unconuect>
ed With, and not produced by the OVer-Work-then,
the defendant would not be liable to the plaintiff for
his value.
The plaintiffs then requested the Court to charge
the jnry that if they found from the evidence that
the defendant employed the slave in controversy,
either BY himself or his agent or overseer in an
sonable hours in q manner that reasonable, prn-
dent man, would not employ his own negroes, that
it was a conversion, and the defendant would be |
liable for his value, although the negro was after
wards accidentally killed The Court refused to
cnarge reque ted, but said that in his opinion it
Wss not conversion"
To the above charge and also to the Court refus
ing TO charge as requested the plaintiffs exoeps,
aud upon these alleged they rely for reyer-
sal Of the judgment. We think there is no error in
49, e IL, - u =
would have been erroneous to have charged as re-
quested.
In that portion Of the charge to which there is no
exception and which is set out in this opinion
the Court erred in favor Of the plaintiff. l. is not
assumed, even in the argument that the defendant
put the slave TO service different from that author
lied by the contract; but the argument is that the
defendant required Of the slave undue and exces
sive labor, al unreasonable and improper hours,
about service in which, under the contrast he had
q right to employ him.
This, though highly improper, If true would not /
amount a conversion And so the Court correctly,
We think, instructed the jury. When the hirer
appropriaes the slaves to a entirely different |
from the one for which he was hired, as if be we're
hired TO work on q farm and be put him ss q hand |
upon steamboat, or st furnace, he thereby
an authority wholly unauthorized by the |
contract and usurps the character Of owner, and is
guilty Of conversion But when he exaels Of him |
Immoderate service, in employment authorized |
by the contract this does not amount 10 sssump-
tIOn Of ownership and Of o right distinct and diff
erent from that acquired BY the contract, and does
not, therefore, amount TO a conversion.
By the contract Of hiring, the hrer is bound to
the thing hired in moderate and prudent man
uer. If he hire 3 slave, he must not work him IN
ressOns rly or immoderatey. Should be do 90, he I
will be liable in action tbs case for the dana
ges resulting from his misconduct; bat not for
eOHUeysoH. If the death Of the slave in question, 1
had resulted from the negligence or misconduct Of
the defendant a. The time II occurred, he being en-
ployed at business authorized By the contract, he \
would have been liable for the value Of the slave,
an action on the ease because the Injury would have
resulted from his own misconduct But if at the I
time the injury occurred the defendant was in no
fault, though he may have previously worked the |
slave unreasonably aud immOderslely-if no injury
resulted therefrom, and the slave at the time being
employed at a service authorized by the contract, /
then as we think this action could not be main
tanned on either count in the declaration. We think
therefore, there is error in the judgment Of the
Circuit Court and it is affirmed Harris.
Test: NJ D. WEIGH, Clerk.