Case Name: Anthony Chanet against George Parker
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1817-05
Citations: 1 Mill 333
Docket Number: 
Parties: Anthony Chanet against George Parker.
Judges: The other Judges concurred, except Cheves, J. who gave no opinion, having been of counsel in the case.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 333–335

Head Matter:
Anthony Chanet against George Parker.
Charleston,
May, 1817.
Trespass against groes. The names of two stricken out of the record, g?MtvSSicthiSi iar.d t0 be rC£u
StinglI?!tiespail’, and the1jury may sever 1»
Trespass for taking away sundry negroes, &c. tried before Mr. Justice Brevard, in May Term, ini 0 lOAO.
This was an action, as stated in the brief, brought against George Parker, Lewis Chupein, and Frederick Tavel, jointly; prosecuted alone against Parker, ("the names of the others being o ' v. o stricken from the proceedings,) in which Jury gave a verdict against him for 50 dollars.
This was, therefore, a motion for a new trial; 1st, on the ground that there was no evidence on the trial to convict him of the trespass; and, 2d, that it was a verdict against law, inasmuch as it was a joint action against three persons, and the verdict against one only.
1. On the first ground, the Judge who tried the cause reports, that the plaintiff had purchased the slaves in question from the lawful proprietor, and had them in possession, with the assent of the defendant, Parker, and took them to his plantation; that these negroes were afterwards forcibly taken away from the plaintiff’s plantation, by divers persons, under pretence or colour of a mortgage from one Samuel Holman ; and that defendant aided and assisted in taking ten of the negroes away.
It appeared further from the testimony of Jackson, the deputy sheriff who went to take these ne groes under this mortgage, that Parker opened the barn door on the plaintiff’s plantation, and ^he parj;y wbo went with Jackson, that the were in the barn; that they accordingly went in, and took ten of the negroes away, and brought them to Charleston; that one or two other negroes were left with him, the defendant, and he gave a receipt for them to be produced when demanded.
Upon this testimony, and some more of the like tendency, the Judge submitted the facts to the Jury, and told them it was for them to determine whether the defendant was present aiding and assisting in the trespass, or not ? and the Jury found that he was present, and acting on the occasion.
2d. Upon the second ground, the Judge states, that on the trial it was moved that a nonsuit might be entered, as two of the names of the defendants had been stricken from the proceedings, and suit carried on against one alone; but this he over-ruled, and permitted the cause to go to the Jury, against the defendant alone.

Opinion:
Bay, J.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
I have considered this case, and perfectly coincide with the Circuit Judge, (Brevard,) that where two or more go to commit a trespass, all present aiding or assisting, are principals; and that the party injured may go against the whole, or any one or more of them, as he pleases: and that the evidence as to Parker, who opened the barn door, and was present when the negroes were taken, was very properly submitted to the Jury, after the names of the two other defendants, mentioned in the original proceedings, were stricken out.
Winstanley, for the motion.
K. L. Simons, contra.
And further, that the J ury, in joint actions of this kind, not only are justified in finding against any one or more of the defendants, and severing damages in their verdicts, according to the nature and degrees of the offences committed, by each individual; but in giving damages against any one whose name may be retained in the proceedings, after the names of the other trespassers are stricken out. 1 therefore think the new trial should be refused.
The other Judges concurred, except Cheves, J. who gave no opinion, having been of counsel in the case.