State v. Miller
| Decision Date | 30 June 1847 |
| Citation | 7 Ired. 275,29 N.C. 275 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE STATE v. THOMAS J. MILLER. |
In this State the presumption is, that a black person is a slave.
An indictment for trading with a slave in the day time, by selling him spirituous liquor, must negative an order of the owner or manager, as well as a delivery for the owner.
But an indictment for selling spirituous liquor to a slave in the night time, need not contain such a negation, for the offence is complete, whether the slave had a written permission from his owner or not.
Upon conviction on an indictment, containing several counts, one of which is good and the others bad, judgment must be rendered for the State upon the good count.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law, of Chowan County, at the Spring Term, 1847, his Honor Judge CALDWELL presiding.
This is an indictment for trading with a slave, and has two counts. The first charges, that the defendant in &c. on &c. “unlawfully did sell and deliver to a certain slave, whose name to the jurors is unknown and the property of some person to the jurors unknown, a pint of spirituous liquor, not being delivered for the use of the master, manager, or person having the control of said slave, contrary to the form, &c.” The second count charges, that the defendant, “afterwards, to-wit, on the first day, &c. in the night, between the setting of the sun and the rising thereof, unlawfully did sell and deliver unto a certain negro slave, whose name to the jurors is unknown, and the property of some person to the jurors unknown, a pint of spirituous liquor, the said spirituous liquor not being delivered for the use of the master, overseer, or person having the management of said slave, contrary” &c.
On not guilty pleaded, the evidence was, that the prisoner, in the night time, sold and delivered spirituous liquor to a negro, but the witness did not know him, and could not say whether he was a slave or not. The counsel for the prisoner objected to the evidence being received, and insisted that it did not legally authorise a conviction. But the Court received it, and charged the jury, that it was evidence, on which they might find the defendant guilty. After a verdict for the State, the defendant moved for a venire de novo, for error in receiving the evidence and in the instructions to the jury; and, that being denied, he moved in arrest of judgment, because the indictment does not aver, that the liquor was not sold to the slave “ by the order of the owner or person having the management” of the slave. The motion in arrest was over-ruled and the defendant appealed.
Attorney General, for the State .
A. Moore and Heath, for the defendant .
Upon the question of evidence, and the presumption of the state of a negro from his color, the Court thinks the decision right. In Scott v. Williams, 1 Dev. 376, the Court said explicitly, that in this State there must be a presumption, that a black person is a slave. That is a presumption, not restricted to actions to try the right to freedom, as peculiarly applicable to them. It is a natural presumption arising out of the color, and the known fact that all persons of black complexion, or negroes, were originally slaves here; and therefore it is laid on one, who says such a person is not a slave, to prove it; and this extends to every case, in which the question, slave or not, arises.
The judgment cannot be arrested; because, although we think the objection well taken to one of the counts, we hold the other to be good. Taking all the provisions of the act together, the effect of it is, that on Sunday, and also in the night time, it is altogether unlawful to trade with a slave, even with the express permission or order in writing of the owner. It seems to have been the intention of the Legislature, that Sunday should not be desecrated by that species of traffic; it being probably considered also, that much of the mischief, in point of civil polity, from the trading of slaves, would be provided against or avoided, by not allowing it on that day, when they are not so much in the service, or under the eye, of the owner. This latter motive led farther to the prohibition of traffic with them in the night time of any other day; it not being deemed safe to allow them under any pretence to trade between sun-set and sun-rise. The language and grammatical construction of the act, besides the mischief in view, make this the necessary construction. The first enacting clause of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Calcutt
...The same is true of the sentence under the second count. This principle finds recognition in the decisions of this Court. In State v. Miller, 29 N.C. 275, the defendant was tried and convicted under a two-count bill of indictment, one count being good, the other, bad. The judgment of the Co......
-
State v. Graham
...free from valid objection, and having evidence tending to support it, the conviction and sentence for that offense will be upheld. State v. Miller, 29 N.C. 275; State v. Baker, 63 N.C. 276; State v. Toole, supra; State v. Sheppard, supra; State v. Avery, 159 N.C. 495, 74 S.E. 1016; State v.......
-
State v. Graham
... ... produce in the minds of the jurors a moral certainty of ... defendant's guilt, and exclude any other reasonable ... hypothesis.' State v. Stiwinter, 211 N.C. 278, ... 189 S.E. 868, 869, and cases cited. See also State v ... Madden, 212 N.C. 56, 192 S.E. 859; State v ... Miller, 220 N.C. 660, 18 S.E.2d 143 ... But as ... to the third count charging defendant with the unlawful ... possession of intoxicating whiskey for the purpose of sale, ... the evidence that defendant, who resided four miles away from ... the still, came to the still and got ... ...
-
State v. Toole
...one or more counts are defective the sentence will be supported by the good count, if there be one. State v. Morrison, 2 Ired. 9; State v. Miller, 7 Ired. 275; State v. Williams, 9 Ired. 140; State v. Speight, 69 N. C. 72; State v. Bailey, 73 N. C. 70; State v. Beatty, Phil. (N. C.) 52. The......