Case Name: WILLIAM HARRISON, qui tam, v. ADAM HUNTER
Court: Delaware Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: Delaware
Decision Date: 1797-04-28
Citations: 1 Del. Cas. 138
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILLIAM HARRISON, qui tam, v. ADAM HUNTER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Delaware Cases
Volume: 1
Pages: 138–139

Head Matter:
WILLIAM HARRISON, qui tam, v. ADAM HUNTER.
Court of Common Pleas. Sussex.
April 28, 1797.
Wilson’s Red Book, 160.
Peery, Wilson for defendant. Miller and Bayard for plaintiff.
Reasons in arrest of judgment, that the narratio says “without permit etc. from five Justices of the County of Sussex aforesaid where the said Negro slave called Moses did reside.” The Act is laid “where the owner or owners of the said Negro did reside” etc. [2 Del.Laws 885].
Wilson and Peery
cited Cowp. 476, 4th arid 5th of Philip and Mary, called the 4th of Philip and Mary, and held fatal. 2 Burr. 1037. Words of a statute restrictive of the offence must be laid. Salk. 609. The name of a statute need not be set forth, but if it is and wrong in a word, it is fatal. A verdict will not mend the matter, where the gist of the action is not laid in the declaration. Vide 4 Bac.Abr. 653, pi. 42, 43, 47. If this declaration is good, a defendant might be convicted, and yet having the very permit directed by the Act, to wit, from the county where the master resided.
Bayard and Miller.
No plaintiff or defendant is bound to show more of an Act of Parliament, or covenant, than is material for himself, 5 Com.Dig. 373. Surplusage will not vitiate, Salk. 42. After verdict court will presume everything to have been proved, that was necessary to support the action, 5 Com.Dig. 378. If an exception making part of a covenant is not set out, though bad on demurrer, is good after verdict, Esp.N.P. 300. It was not necessary for plaintiff to show it was done without permit. And a plaintiff need never lay more than he must prove.
This case is also reported in Rodney’s Notes, May, 1797.

Opinion:
Bassett, C. J.,
gave no opinion on the motion, he having drawn the declaration, but he charged the jury (which see in my notes)
Johns, J.
We overrule the reasons in arrest of judgment. The verdict certainly cures the defect, for it is only ambiguity; if the points are changed, the sense will be altered. Cowp. 826. Though the verdict will not aid the want of a matter of fact not laid, yet it will cure matter of form.
Rodney, J., accordant.
Judgment final.
These notes have not been found.