Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-10-16
George Miller vs. Kirkrood, Dsnning, and osborne.

George Miller rs hirkTOOd, Denning, and Osborne
This Gaze vas before US 81 the last term, upon an
appeal in error By the plaintiff in error from YER
dict and Judgment against him. The action is tres
pass for killing negro nan, slave Of the plaintiff
by the defendants The fact Was never denied but
the defendants relied in that trial upon the ground
that at the time they slew The slsve they had good
to believe aud did 5eIisUe that an insurrec-
ton Of the negroes was then contemplated and that
the slave in question Gas engaged in &c In that
trial the defendants permitted by the Court to
give in evidence newspaper publications, the pro-
eeedings Of public meetings committees and the
general fears and spprehensions Of the people on
that exciting subject before sud st that trial
We reversed that judgment and gave a new trial
upon the following grounds as then stated in Wri-
ting
l. The publication in the newspapers on the sub
ject Of the apprehended insurrecion as well as ali
the other proof that subject net duplicating the
slave killed, was illegal evidence
2 The proposition in the charge t'thst the same
evidence which would excuse the defendants from
criminal responsibility, would relieve them from
vii liability, is not true as q general rule, nor
perhaps in application to this case That criminal
purpose and intent, express implied, required to
constitute crime, is not in all cases essential in an
action for injury TO person or property.
s. That part Of the charge which g holds" that if
defendant honestly believed the slave, HARD vas
engaged il an instruction they would be author
lied 20 shoot him down without any attempt TO arrest
or try him." that it may be correct in reference to
state Of facts that might exist when the danger was
imminent aud impending, not SO, in application
to the facts il this case and vas we'll calculated to
mislead the jury. The slave was already tied and
could do harm to any one. Nor is there any evil
denee that he was engaged in an insurrectiou.
There is no legal evidence to sustain the YER.
dict even if the charge Of the Court vas unexcep-
tiOnable Nothing appears connecting this slave in
suy way insurreetionary scheme if aDv such exist
4 ,oft a-.ISv a.
people much less to authorize the unreasonable be-
lief The part Of the defendants that be was then
engaged 10 actual Dsurrec' ioD and besides they
had him well bound with cords and in a condition
entirely harmless So If there even had been auV
danger of him, it did not then exist. Without any
necessity then, real apparent they destroyed the
plaintiffs property, and are therefore liable for the
value "
The case went back and was tried according to
the law, a. CARED in said opinion There was a
verdict against all the defendants for the value of
the slave $500.
Il i admitted hat the verdict agaiust Krkvood
i right, but rot TO DENYING Osborne
very ingenious and lahOred srgumeut Is made in fs
vor Of these PARTIES but we are unable 70 ncur in
it. The negro was killed by the blow Of KirkWo d
but the pr of is ample. that the other defendants
we're united with hin in be act Of tying the slave
in the first instance, without authority sufficient
cause and after he attempted to escape from this
U
may be, aud doubtless was not intended, BY any Of
them, that the negro vas 10 be killed, yet if that
resulted from the unlawful acts in which they were
engaged by the stroke Of either Of Them all would
be equally liable for the damages.
Tn is risk that each joint transgTssser iBcurs,
by his participation in unlawful enterprise. II
the expression may be us d. they are gusraBtOrs for
each other They ere all answsrable for a1y iDju
ry done by either in the common enterprise. Il
is no defense against claim for The damage done
in such case {, only one to say that the gFeaier
and the particular act done, was not contemplated
or intended by him. They embark in q common
cause aud their liability is common. How this
would be in q criminal edng, need not now be
discussed. Other rules might apply to that.
We find no Unstable cause in the proof for the
capture and confinement of the slave In the first
instance even under the acts Of the Assembly TO
which We are referred. He had not mis-behaveh
himself in any ny, had done no wrong, threaten
ed no orc and was entirely Submissive and dOcile.
After bling thus unla afIlly tied with rope he
became alarmed, at what he say and heard
around him, and in sndeavOrinR TO make his escape
from this unlawful confinement, slain by one Of
hi pursuers in the joint purpose to capture him,
without any lawful cause OF neees Y that can Jus
tify the act in 0 suit for damages
The Wild panic and vague and underlined apprs
tensions abOat "TisiBg or insurreo'ion OF the
slaves at that time, cannot be allowed to save
par les from Ii biHty for the obstruction Of their
neighbours property To jus lily this, they mus
stand upon facts, aud not rumors aud grOundless
alarm. This species Of properly above sll others.
must be protected by he law, from cqRfon abuse
All proper principle, well as the personal interest
Of shareholders, unite in establishing the necessity
Of the most stringent laws on this subject.
Humanity as we'll as the general in crest, demand
the Enforcement Of these laws 0bediencs and
strict bOrdinstioB, indispensable on the part
OF the slaves and 50 far as it has been thought ne
cessary for these en- Is poWer has been given to Ma
g'strates. and in particular eases ts individuals
ot than the OWn,rs. But all this is as It should
be, well defined and limi ed.
The Legislature has been very careful in guarding
slaves against the cruelty and violence Of those hav
ing no interest in. or authority over them They
property but have souls and feelings and claims
upon humanity.
Those who take il upon themselves, in these Pc
RODS Of groundless panic to say and destroy, with