Case Name: The State against John Dawson
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1802
Citations: 2 Bay 360
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State against John Dawson.
Judges: All the Judges present.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 360–361

Head Matter:
The State against John Dawson.
Columbia,
1802.
A negro deal-eierisT'of *a without1161'’ a ticket from his master or owner, &c. is to charge such anmd?ctmen£ knowledge of the fact was brought home to him, or some general order proved pose*'üwugh self ¡^charge-aWe-
UPON an indictment for trading with a negro, without a ticket from his master or person in whose charge he was, contrary to the act of the legislature in such case provided. Verdict, guilty. Motion for new trial.
. On the trial of this case at Georgetown, it appeared that the defendant kept a small retail store in the neighbourhood, and that the prosecutor’s negro had been seen carrying corn t0 this store, and delivering it to a clerks who had the care of t|le store,
, The Attorney-General then contended,
, , that the evidence had brought the defendant clearly within the mean-inS the act> which declares, “ that if any shopkeeper, « trader, or other person, shall at any time after the passing “ of the act, by himself or any other person, directly or in- “ directly, buy or purchase from any slave in this state any “ corn, rice, pease, or other grain, bacon, flour, tobacco, “ cotton, indigo, blades, or any other article whatsoever, or “ shall deal, trade or traffic with any slave whatever, not “ having a ticket or permit so to deal, trade or traffic, or to “ sell any such article, from the master or owner of such “ slave, or such other person as may have the care and “ management of such slave, every such person, shopkeeper “ and trader shall, for every such offence, forfeit a sum not “ exceeding two hundred dollars, to be recovered by bill, “ plaint or indictment, one half to the informer, and the “ other moiety to the state, in any court of competent ju- “ risdiction in the same.’’
The Attorney-General then argued,
that although the evidence had not proved that the defendant himself had received the corn, yet it was delivered to his clerk or storekeeper, who was the defendant’s agent, and therefore it was presumable he had the defendant’s orders for it, and consequently that he was chargeable under this indictment.
For the defendant, it was urged, that he was not present when this corn was delivered to the clerk ; on the contrary, that he was from home at the time, nor was it proved that he had ever given orders or directions to his clerk to deal or traffic with the prosecutor’s negro, or any other negro whatever ; and, therefore, for aught that appeared on this trial, he might be as innocent of the charge as any man on the jury-
The presiding judge (Waties) told the jury, that he thought the evidence not sufficiently strong to convict the defendant, without some knowledge of the fact had been brought home to him, or some general order or direction nad. been proved to have been given to his clerk for that purpose.
The jury, however, found him guilty of the offence ; and this was a motion for a new trial, as a conviction without evidence, as well as against the charge and direction of the judge.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
There ought to be a new trial in this case, as there is no knowledge of this fact brought, home to the defendant, nor any general directions proved against him ; and although the prosecution might be maintained against the clerk who received the corn, yet there is no proof to charge the defendant, as was very properly laid down by the presiding judge on the trial.
Rule for new trial made absolute.
All the Judges present.