Case Name: Edwill Thacker v. John Hawk et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1842-12
Citations: 11 Ohio 376
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edwill Thacker v. John Hawk et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 11
Pages: 322–330

Head Matter:
Edwill Thacker v. John Hawk et al.
Where the court of common pleas instructed the jury that a man who ha» any negro blood whatever was not a lawful voter, it is error.
This is a writ of error to the court of common pleas of Gallia county.
The original action was against the defendants, trustees of Wilkesville township, for refusing to receive the plaintiff's vote an election for justice of the peace. On the trial, the following .bill of exceptions was taken :
*Be it remembered, that, on the trial of this cause in the court of common pleas of Gallia county, at the April term thereof, A. d. 1841, the evidence on both sides being closed, some of which evidence, offered by the defendants, tended to prove that the plaintiff in this case had some negro blood in him, the plaintiff moved the court to instruct the jury, that, if the plaintiff was nearer white than a mulatto, or half blood, he was entitled to vote at said ■election, which instruction the court refused to give to the jury; but the court did instruct the jury, that if the plaintiff had in him any negro blood whatever, he was not entitled to vote at said election, and, thereupon, the said plaintiff excepted to such refusal .and instruction, and prayed that his bill of exceptions on that behalf might be allowed, which is accordingly done, and, upon his motion, the same is ordered to be made a part of the record in this case.”
Simeon Nash, for plaintiff in error :
There are two questions presented by this record:
1. Can an action be sustained against the trustees of townships for refusing to receive the vote of one legally entitled to vote, unless proof can be adduced of their having acted maliciously? 'This question was also raised by the demurrer to the second count.
In Massachusetts, this question has been expressly decided, after the gravest consideration. Such actions are there maintained upon great principles of public policy. Killman v. Ward, 2 Mass. 236; Lincoln v. Hopgood, 11 Mass. 350; Henshaw v. Foster et al., 7 Pick. 322; Cassen v. Foster et al., 12 Pick. 485. The same doctrine has been maintained in the State of Maine. Osgood v. Brad ley, 7 Greenl. 421. In the case of Williams v. Directors of School District, etc., Wright, 578, a similar action seems to have been maintained against school directors, for not permitting plaint, iff’s children to attend the public school. No malice seems to have been imputed to the directors.
*There is one decision against this doctrine-Jenkins v. Waldron, 11 Johns. 114. In this case, the court decided that the action could not be maintained, without proof of malice. The opinion of the court is brief, and predicated upon the assumption that the trustees are quasi judges. The case of Ashby v. White, Ld. Raym. 938, is cited and relied upon, as maintaining the same principle. This same case is relied upon, in the case of Lincoln v. Hopgood, 11 Mass. 350, for asserting a directly contrary doctrine. The case is also found in Smith’s Selection of Leading Cases, 17 Law Library, 82. On careful examination, it will be found to fail the New York court. It is there said, that the ease decides that a man, having a right to vote, can maintain an action against the returning officer for refusing his vote. If the trustees are like judges, and not ministerial officers, then they could not be sued for refusing a vote maliciously. Judges can not be called in question for their decisions, however maliciously they may have acted. And this was the opinion of the judges in Ashby v. White, who were opposed to Lord Holt.
2. As to the instructions of the court. I believe they are wrong. There are but three classes of persons — blacks, or negroes, mulattoes, and whites, known to our laws. A black, or negro, is a full-blood African, or one nearer to that than a mulatto; a mulatto is one begotten between a white and a negro, or one nearer to that than to a white; and a white person embraces all which are neither blacks nor mulattoes. Our black law speaks only of blacks, or negroes, and mulattoes; these are prohibited from coming into the state, and from being employed, unless having given security. Persons neither blacks nor mulattoes can come into the state without restriction. The property of blacks and mulattoes is exempted from taxation for school purposes; none but white children are permitted to attend school. A person neither a black or mulatto, but having some negro blood, will then be taxed, and his children excluded from the school. The legislature never intended such injustice; they designed to permit the children of all to attend, *whose property was subject to taxation to raise the school funds.
The question has been decided in Ohio. Polly Gray v. Ohio, 4 Ohio, 354. In this case, it was'held that Polly Gray, being nearer a white than a mulatto, was a white person, and a negro could not be a witness against her. The same question came before this court on the circuit, in the case of Williams v. School Directors, etc., Wright, 578. It was there held, that the children of a white mother, and a father three-quarters white, were white children, and as such, were entitled to attend the public schools. Since these decisions, such persons have been considered white, and have been permitted to vote, and their votes were decided to be legal, in the contested election from Hamilton county, in the session of 1840-41. The only question then is, will the court maintain its own decisions? 1 Devereux, 336; Scott v. Williams, 1 Hen. & Mumf. 133; Hudgins v. Wright, 2 Mumf. 379; 2 Halstead, 253; 3 Ib. 375.
No argument for the defendants in error came to the hands of the reporter. ,

Opinion:
Lane, C. J.
This case presents the same question as in Jeffries v. Ankeny et al., and must be decided by the same principles. The court charged the jury, that if the plaintiff had any negro blood whatever, he was not a lawful elector. That charge was wrong, and judgment must be reversed.
Judgment reversed.