Case Name: THE STATE VS JACOB SCHRODER
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1835-10
Citations: 3 Hill 61
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE STATE VS JACOB SCHRODER.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 21
Pages: 61–62

Head Matter:
THE STATE VS JACOB SCHRODER.
In an indictment under the Act of 1834 for selling spirituous liquors to q slave, it is not necessary to describe the defendant as “ a free white person.”
If the defendant be a vendor of spirits, he is liable under the Act, whether he retails or not.
On an indictment against defendant for selling spirituous liquors to a slave, the count on which he was convicted was for delivering spirituous liquors “to a slave of a person and name unknown held that the count was insufficient, by reason of its generality.
Tried before his Honor Judge Bay, Charleston, October Term, 1835.
Indictment for selling spirituous liquors to a slave without a ticket from the master or owner.
Judge's Report of testimony. — Mr. J. A. Miller, City- Marshal, sworn. On the 3d April last, as he was walking down Market-street, with Mr. Wish, he saw a number of negroes at and about'the shop of Mr. Schroder ; and particularly, they remarked five negroes go into a shed-room, and Mr. Schroder immediately went in after them, and took a decanter of whiskey with him. Witness and' Mr. Wish, (who was also a city marshal,) forced into the door of this shed-room, where they found three of the negroes sitting at a table, with liquor in some tumblers, and the decanter nearly empty. They then ran off by a back-room door into a yard. Schroder is a retailer of liquors. To the best of his knowledge, the negroes were all slaves ; the room smelled of liquors; Schroder said the negroes came to look at some cod fish he had for sale; it was about eight o’clock in the evening.
On his cross-examination, he said he did not see the defendant sell any liquor, or the negroes pay any money for liquor.
Richard Wish. Was present with Mr. Miller, and saw Mr. Schroder and three negroes; there were tumblers on a table with liquor, and a pitcher of water. The negroes ran off as soon as they went into the room.
On his cross-examination, Mr, Wish said he did not see the negroes drink any liquor. Defendant said they had come to see some cod fish he had for sale.
For Defendant.
Lushington Pritchard, was at Sohroder’s between eight and nine o’clock that night, when Miller and Wish came in. There were no liquors sold there that night, only some molasses to a negro' boy.
Jacob Runner, was at Schroder’s that night, when Mr. Wish attempted to come in. Some molasses was delivered to a negro boy; but there was no liquor sold or delivered to negroes there, that night.

Opinion:
Mr, Bailey,
for the prosecution, quoted the first clause of the negro Act, which declares all negroes as slaves, till the contrary is proved.
From the foregoing testimony, the jury found a verdict of guilty against the defendant.
There- were two other indictments given out against defendant, on which similar verdicts were found, as they all depended on the same tes, timony.