State v. Jacobs

• Decision Date: 30 June 1859
• Citation: 51 N.C. 284,6 Jones 284
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. ASA JACOBS.

6 Jones (NC) 284

51 N.C. 284

STATE

v.ASA JACOBS.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June Term, 1859.

Upon a question, whether a person is a free negro, it is competent for one, who says he is the owner and manager of slaves, and has been for twelve years, that he has given much attention to the effects of the intermixture of the races, and believes he can distinguish between the descendants of the negro and white person and negro and Indian, and whether a person has more or less African blood in him, to testify as an expert.

INDICTMENT against the defendant, as a free negro, for carrying fire-arms, against the form of the act of Assembly, tried before HEATH, J., Brunswick Superior Court.

The State introduced one Pritchett, who swore that he knew the defendant, and had known him as long as he had known any one; that he had never seen any of defendant's ancestors, and knew nothing of them from reputation. Thereupon, the solicitor with a view of showing that witness was qualified to speak as an expert, inquired of him what business and occupation he followed, and what knowledge and observation he had, if any, of the effect of the intermixture of negro or African blood with that of other races. The counsel for the defendant objected, that, as the witness did not profess to have any knowledge of the defendant's ancestry by actual knowledge or reputation, he could not be permitted to testify as to whether the defendant was a free negro or not. The Court held that the witness might be permitted to answer the question propounded, in order that it might be seen whether he was qualified to testify as an expert.

The witness then stated that he was a planter, an owner and manager of slaves, and had been for more than twelve years, that he had paid much attention to and had had much observation of the effects of the intermixture of negro or African blood with the white and Indian races, and that from such attention and observation, he was well satisfied that he could distinguish between the descendants of a negro and a white person, and the descendants of a negro and Indian; and further, that he could therefrom, also say whether a person was full African or negro, or had more or less than half negro or African blood in him, and whether the cross or intermixture was white or Indian blood.

The witness was admitted to testify, and stated his opinion to be that the defendant was what is called a mulatto--that is, half African and half white. The defendant's counsel excepted to the admission of this evidence, and upon defendant's conviction, appealed to this Court.

Attorney General and K. P. Battle, for the State .

Baker, for the defendant .

BATTLE, J.

The sole question presented on the record is, whether the witness Pritchett was competent to testify as an expert, that the defendant was a descendant of an African ancestor. An expert, in the strict sense of the word, is defined to be “a person instructed by experience.” But more generally speaking, the term includes “all men of science;” as it was used by Lord MANSFIELD, in Folkes v. Chadd, 3 Doug. Rep. 157, “or persons conversant with the subject matter, on questions of science, skill, trade and others of the like kind;” Best's principles of Evidence, sec. 346; 1 Greenf. on Evidence, in note to sec. 440. The rule on this subject is stated by Mr. Smith in his note to Carter v. Boehm, 1 Smith's Lead. Cas. 286; “On the one hand it appears to be admitted, that the opinion of witnesses, possesssing peculiar skill, is admissible whenever the subject matter of enquiry is such, that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of forming a correct judgment upon it without such assistance; in other words, where it so far partakes of the nature of science as to require a course of previous habit, or study, in order to the attainment of a knowledge of it; while, on the other hand, it does not seem to be contended that the opinion of witnesses can be received when the enquiry is into a subject matter, the nature of which is not such as to require any peculiar habits or study, in order to qualify a man to understand it.” In...