The Weekly Perrysburg journal. [volume] (Perrysburg, O. [Ohio]) 1861-1???, 1863-11-11

ness than this. Ia North Carolina they arc
prohibited 10y law from keeping various
kinds OF domestic animals. even by pernis-
Sivn of their owners. and 80 we find it de
cided in McNamara vs. Kcrns, 2 Iredcll, &C.
where hogs belonging ~ a slave, kept by
him with the Knowledge and consent Of his
mister, upon his masters property, and
within sight ot his house. were seized bs
some parish Ovcrscers, 10 be sold for the
benefit OF the parish, despite evon Of the
protest Of IL" master against their being
taken.
And lcuk for moment at the case q.
EH!abrth T. Gist ~ Fookey, 2 Richard.
sons 5. {. Rep, 424 where the plaintiffs
slave. who made money over aud above his
wages, paid SlOO 70 the defendant 20 pur-
chase his ,ihe saNe's) children. the dc.
lcuitit agreeing to buy them for $780, the
money 20 be repaid by the slave ss fast AZ
hc could earn it, The defendant bought
the children but the plaintiff sued the de.
icudant iur the 500, aud lecovcrpd il the
Court dccding the slave had TO right to
any property, and all belonged 10 his mis-.
trrss.
rhc poor children. ~ course remained
slaves Tor the deed Of Iuauunlission was
not to be signed until defendant received
the $3.50 IN full and SO the poor slave
toilod tor uuught, and had not the exquisite
pleasure OF freeing his own children.
ulS NAsrrR NAY CuAsrtsr, AND rvEN soSE.
TIMrS SHOOT HIM, WITHOUT PUNISHMENT.
| The power OF tho master over the person
/ of the slave. necessarily involves the right
of chastiscmcnt; and this may I've inflicted
in such proportions and to such extent as
! the owner may deem proper, there being
but single limitation, that II should not be
excessive; hut whether it is or not s left
for Il jury Shareholders, Of course) to
Judge.
Thus we find the following case, State ~.
Man, DcvercuX 2G3 in which it appears
! that II master having hired female slave
to another person. the latter undertook 10
chnstisc her for having committed $50 says
the rcport II small offence. During the
process she ran Oh her master for tho
time called upon her To stop. which shc re-
fusing to do, with the chivalric spirit Of the
South, the slave being woman, he shot at
aud wounded her. But. alas she had no
redress. The Judge tells her the master is
not liable TO indictment for assault and bat
terry; and feeling how contrary to all sense
of Justice and humanity such decision
must appear. il compelled to say, y judge
cannot but Lament when such cases IA the
present are brought into Judgment 1t il
llllIbSSlDlt lllJl tut ltdhfIh ulbll
they go can be appreciated but where ill.,
Stiutions similar to our own exist and are
thoroughly understood. The struggle, too.
III the judges own breast between the feel
ings OF the man and the duty OF the maSis-
tratc. is q severe one | would gladly have
avoided this nngrateful question" To tho
same effect is Turner's case, Rand, Viz.
ginil, G7S.
As thc slave cannot defend himself against
his master neither can hc against any one
, else In every Southern State black is,
, 10y virtue of his color, slave. until he can
prove his freedom (Howard vs. Howard,
& Jones, 235.) Aud in South Carolina. the
t insolcnce OF a slave towards whito per-
- son is an offence for which he may be tried
and punished, (erpdrte Boughston. 2Strob-
hart. A. In thus case the prosecutrix "a
womaul charged the slave with using i'll
) solcnt language and action" towards her ;
/ and the poor victim, being unable to speak
for himself and incapable of producing his
felOw-slaves as witnesses, doubtless was
well punished, Tor 30 vague charge may
: he used to distort any trivial circumstance
into grievous offence.
+ The slave must, therefore, obey his mas
ter il he resists, his master may chastise
him at discretion and yet anguE -!y
enough, the poor creature cannot shield
, himself behind his commands. This is the
doctrine Of Sarah VI. The State, l8 Arkan.
sas Rep, III, whore it was decided that
"whcn slave is indicted for n criminal Of
I tense, he cannot show it was committed 10y
order of his master, except III mitigation OF
. punishment, when less than Il felony Or
. dcrcd, therefore, to steal even chicken, II,
- runs the gauntlet between the master''
. whip and pistol, and the lash and dungeon
e Of the common Jail.
\ SLAVE HORRIBLY MuTlLATEp rs MS MASTER
No wonder, then, that the power of the
, master being So absolute, it tsomctimes rise,
| into frighttul cXCesscs such, for instance
as were brought to light in the case OF I'm
a ley VS. The State. II Humphreys, Tenn
D Rep. l12. In this case it appeared thai
upon the prctcxt of the slave being lewC
| aud vicous, and il being necessary ior hi,
= moral reformation, his master, an old man
G assisted by his two sons, mutilated hin
I horribly.
c Who but one imbucd with the brutalizin.
y effects of slavery, would have dared to OF
: fer, in court of justice, this prctcxt as /
+ defense for such ali outrage?