Case Name: R. G. Southwell vs. Preston Harley
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1832-05
Citations: 3 Rich. 180
Docket Number: 
Parties: R. G. Southwell vs. Preston Harley.
Judges: Johnson and Harper, JJ. concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 37
Pages: 180–182

Head Matter:
R. G. Southwell vs. Preston Harley.
A sheriff is not liable to the penalty imposed by the Act of 1794, for levying and selling a trooper’s horse, unless the horse has been “duly entered and registered with the captain of the troop,” according to the directions of the Act.
Before Gantt, J. at Barnwell, Spring Term, 1832.
This was an action of debt brought against the defendant, the sheriff of Barnwell district, to recover the penalty of £.10 imposed by the Act of 1794, 1 Faust, 314. The Act provides that “ all arms and accoutrements which by this Act are required to be provided, also the troop horse of each trooper, duly entered and registered with the captain of the troop, so long as said trooper shall continue in the troop, shall not be liable to be seized, distrained, or taken in execution for any cause, matter or thing, whatsoever. And in case any person shall seize, levy, or distrain upon any such arms, accoutrements, or horse, every such person shall forfeit the sum of ten pounds sterling money, to be recovered in any court of record in this State.” The plaintiff produced in evidence a commission to Richard Johnson, as captain of a troop of cavalry in the Militia of this State, and proved by the secretary, that he, the plaintiff, was a member of the company and performed duty as such, with a horse, which the defendant had levied and sold under an execution, and that the horse levied and sold was the only one which the plaintiff had which was suitable for that service. This witness further said, that the horse had not been entered and registered with the captain of the troop, and that it had been supposed not to be usual or necessary to make a register of the troopers’ horses. His Honor non-suited the plaintiff, holding that he could not recover, inasmuch as the horse had not teen registered. The plaintiff appealed.
Patterson, for the motion.
-, contra.
Yide Act of 1841, 11 Stat. 210, which provides that the “ horse shall be registered with -the commander of the corps,” &c. and increases the penalty for seizure, &c. to fifty dollars, to be recovered by indictment. R.

Opinion:
Curia, per
O'Neall, J.
It has been contended that in order to exempt the troop horse from execution, it was not necessary that he should be " duly entered and registered with the captain of the troop." It was supposed that these words applied to the trooper, and not to his horse. But it is manifest that this construction cannot prevail. The terms " entered and registered" are not used in any of the Acts of the Legislature as designating the act to be done by the member of a volunteer company, in order to give him the privileges of it. The term used in relation to the men or members of a company is " enrolled." If the mere fact of the horse being the one with which the trooper usually did duty, was enough to create the exemption from execution, the words " duly entered and registered with the captain of the troop," were wholly unnecessary. For the " troop horse of each trooper" was a sufficient description; no person could be a trooper without being regularly enrolled in some troop of cavalry — and hence, as regarded him, the description by the word " trooper" was enough. He could not claim an exemption for himself or horse, until he could shew he had been legally enrolled. But in order to make a horse the troop horse of a trooper, he must be duly entered and registered as such, with the captain of the troop. Until that is done, he may be the horse which the trooper usually rides on parade, but he is not a troop horse until made a part of the troop by being entered and registered. He is thus set apart by his owner, and accepted by the captain, for that service, and, in consequence of it, is exempted from execution. If this was not the construction, a trooper might protect every horse which he owned, by parading occasionally on each. Bach would thus be the troop horse of the trooper. Only one was, however, intended to be exempted ; and the entry and registration with the captain, was intended to be the record whereby the exemption should be claimed, and by which every one interested might ascertain the horse which was the troop horse of each trooper.
The motion to set aside the non-suit is dismissed.
Johnson and Harper, JJ. concurred.