Case Name: The State v. Henry Boice
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1840-02
Citations: 1 Chev. 77
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State v. Henry Boice.
Judges: Judgment arrested; Gantt, Butler and Earle, JJ., concurring.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 77–78

Head Matter:
The State v. Henry Boice.
An indictment (under A. A. 1817 and 1834,) for selling liquor to the slave of William Patton, charged the- selling to have been without “ a written order of or from the said William Boice, ’ ’ (instead of Patton, the owner,) “ or of or from any other person having charge or management of said slave.” After verdict of conviction, judgment was arrested.
Before Evans, J., at Charleston, January Term, 1840.
This was an indictment for selling spirits to a negro, the slave of William Patton. Verdict guilty.
The defendant appealed, and moved in arrest of judgment on account of a defect on the face of the indictment.
State v. Boice Stuke, 1 McM. 189, 191. An.

Opinion:
Curia, per Bichardson, J.
The indictment charges that the defendant Henry Boice, did sell and deliver, to a certain slave of William Patton, spirituous- liquor, &c., "not having a written order of or from the said William Boice (instead of Patton), or of or from any other person having the care and management 'of said slave, to sell or deliver the said spirituous liquors to the said slave,"- &c.
Both the A. A. 1817, (p. 25,) and A. A. 1834, (p. 12,) un-der one or both of which this indictment is preferred, prohibit such selling and delivery to a slave, without the written order of the owner, or of some person having the care and management of the slave. Now, indictments upon statutes must state all the facts and circumstances which make up the definition of the offence, so as to bring the party accused precisely within the statute, (The State v. Foster, 3 M'C. 442; The State v. O'Bannon, 1 Bailey R. 144,) and nothing can be taken by mere intendment.
Yeadon and Macbeth, for the motion;
Bailey, contra.
In the indictment before us, the trading is charged to have been without the order " of the said William Boice, or of any other person having the care or management of the said slave." There is no negation of Boice having had the written order of the owner, William Patton, without which averment the offence defined by the statute is not set forth completely in the indictment; for it might be, for aught that appears, that the defendant did have such an order, which would take his case out of the statute.
Judgment arrested; Gantt, Butler and Earle, JJ., concurring.
7 Stat. 454; Id. 468; 6 Stat. 516. An.