Case Name: The State vs. Claus Von Glon, Jun
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1841-02
Citations: 1 McMul. 187
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State vs. Claus Von Glon, Jun.
Judges: The whole Court concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 123–123

Head Matter:
The State vs. Claus Von Glon, Jun.
Any trading with a slave, without a permit from Iris owner or employer, in buying or selling, for cash or on credit, for much or for little, is an indictable offence, under the Act of 1817.
Before Richardson, J., at Charleston, January Term, 1841.
This was an indictment, under the Act of 1817, for illegal trading with Somerset, the slave of --- Beckley. The evidence (see my notes) proved that Somerset often bought small articles at defendant’s store, as id or 7d worth of coffee or sugar .for cash, or credit, &c. (B. Reed-ing’s testimony.)
I charged the jury, that such trading came within the prohibition of the Act — buying from or selling to a slave, were equally forbidden — the object was to prevent all and any trading.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and defendant appeals.
1. Because the Judge charged, that the sale for cash, of any article, however small, to a slave, came within the prohibition, and subjected the party to the penalty of the law; whereas, it is contended, that the law only prohibits purchasing, either for money or goods, articles from a slave — and the simple retail of a few cents of groceries for cash, is not illegal.
*2. The evidence established only that the defendant had, at times not stated, retailed small articles from his store to Somerset, the slave of the prosecutor, in the same way as to other persons, to the amount of four pence or seven pence at a time. There was no proof that he had ever bought anything.
limit, for the motion,
cited A. A. 1817, p. 25, and said that the whole purview of this Act was to prevent buying from a slave, and was never intended to prevent any thing but purchasing corn, rice, &c.
He contended that the words trading and trafficking were put in opposition with buying.
Bailey, Attorney General, contra,
submitted the case without argument.
7 Stat., 454. An.

Opinion:
Curia, per
O'Neall, J.
The point made in this case was decided by the Constitutional Court, at Columbia, Fall Term, 1818, in the case against Súber, and has ever since been regarded as settled. If, however, it was open for argument, it is plain that under the words of the Act, any trading with a slave, without'a permit from his owner or employer, in buying or selling, for cash or on credit, for much or for little is an indictable offence.
The motion is dismissed.
The whole Court concurred.
11 Stat., 38, § 63. An.