Markley v. State

• Decision Date: 31 January 1847
• Citation: 10 Mo. 291
• Parties: MARKLEY v. THE STATE.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

10 Mo. 291

MARKLEY

v.THE STATE.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1847.

ERROR TO PIKE CIRCUIT COURT.

BROADHEAD, for Plaintiff. 1st. The indictment should negative the idea of a written permission from the master, owner, or overseer of the slave. Rev. Code, 1845, p. 1018, § 33; 8 Mo. R. 210. 2nd. The indictment is bad, because the time “one thousand, eighteen hundred and forty-six,” is impossible. See Chitty's Crim. L. 225.

McBRIDE, J.

Markley was indicted at the April term of the Pike Circuit Court, 1846, for dealing with a slave, without permission of the owner of said slave. At the September term of the court a trial was had, verdict of guilty found, and a fine of $20 assessed against the defendant, on which the court entered judgment; thereupon, the defendant moved in arrest of judgment, assigning as reasons therefor: 1st. Because it is not charged in any one of the counts in said indictment, that said Markley dealt with the slave mentioned in said indictment, without the consent in writing of the master of said slave. 2nd. Because it is not averred in the counts in said indictment, that said Markley did deal with the slave, Charles, mentioned in said indictment, without the consent in writing of the overseer of said slave. 3rd. Because it is not averred in either of the counts in said indictment, that said Markley did deal with the slave without the consent, in writing, of the master, owner, or overseer of said slave. 4th. Because the indictment is in other respects illegal and defective. 5th. Because the time alleged in said indictment is impossible. Which motion having been overruled, the defendant excepted and has brought the case here by writ of error: and now assigns for error the refusal of the Circuit Court to sustain his motion in arrest of judgment, for the reasons set forth therein.

The indictment charges that “the grand jurors, &c., present that John S. Markley, on the 1st January, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eighteen hundred and forty-six, &c., did deal with a certain slave called Charles, belonging to one Fountain Edwards, he, the said Markley, not having first obtained from him, the said Edwards, a consent in writing to deal as aforesaid, with said slave, contrary.” &c. The other three counts are of the same import, except the third, which further alleges that Edwards, as owner of the slave, did not consent in writing.

The indictment is founded on § 33, art. 1, of Rev. Code, 1835, p. 1018, which provides that any person who shall buy of, sell to, or receive from any slave any commodity, whatsoever, without the consent in writing of the master, owner or overseer of such slave, first had and obtained, or who shall deal with any slave,...