State v. Honeycutt, 60 N.C. 51, 1 Win. 51 (1864)

Dec. 1864 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

60 N.C. 51, 1 Win. 51

THE STATE vs. RICHARD HONEYCUTT.

Buying- ef, ana n’ceivii g ftom, a slave, corn other loibidci>>*> urtide cm the slave's own account, the owner nf t,[n> vt- hoing pres.!»!, and knowing what, is done, and giving no written p'-rmi.-vdim, is indintahle nnder sec. S5, ch. 34, of R-¡v. Cult

State vs. Hart, 4 Ire., 246, cited and apjtrov.-d.

This was an indictment against the defendant for buying of, and receiving from a slave, belonging to F. B. Mooré, a certain quantity ot corn, against tbe' act of tbe G-eneral Assembly, (Rev. Code, ch. 34, sec. 85,) tried before Heath, J.,at Iredell Superior Court, Fall Term, 1864.'

On tbe part of tbe State, there ¿vas evidence tending to show that tbe slave, in the night time, carried a bag of' corn near to the defendant’s bouse, and threw two stones on tbe roof of tbe bouse, and tbe defendant came out of tbe house on the second stone's being thrown, and received tbe corn. Tbe master of tbe slave, and the-witness for tbe State, suspecting that the slave was carrying the corn to the defendant for the purpose of selling it to him, followed tbe slave, and was near him when the corn was sold and delivered, and saw tbe sale and delivery. When tbe corn was delivered to the defendant,, bo handed something to tbe slave, but the witness did not know what. . The defendant did not know of tbe master’s presence.

The defence was, that as the,master was present at tbe sale and delivery, they wore his acts an*; not those of the slave.*

The Judge charged tbe jury, that if tbe sale and delivery, one or both, were made -by the slave, as described by tbe witness, and tbe defendant did not know, at the'time, that the master was present, the presence of the master made no difference, and the defendant was guilty, and from the judgment accordingly, he appealed.

Attorney General for the State.

No counsel for the defendant in this Court.

Mahly, J.

The principle assumed by the counsel in the Court below, that the master may sell and deliver corn by the hands of his slave, he, the master, being-present and. directing it, is too plain to admit of contradiction : but this is not the casé presented upon the’ record.

The master was, indeed, within view of the transaction between his slave and the defendant; but there is no evidence that either defendant or the slave knew of his being there ; much less is there any evidence that the master' authorized the act. All the case states, bearing upon this point; is,.that the master followed^ the slave because he suspected that he was going to trade with the defendant, and was-in view of the trading when it occurred.

The delivery of the corn was made ,in .the night time, by the slave, upon a private interview procured by unusual signalsj and may be presumed, under the circumstances, to have been on the slave’s own account, unless the contrary appear. Such a delivery, without a written pertnission, is against the criminal law, although the owner or manager was cognizant of it and consenting to it. This is decided in the case of Hart, 4 Ire., 246, and is now approved.

Without impugning, thérefore, the position that a slave may lawfully, without a written license, deliver corn in his master’s name and on his master’s account, provided his master constitutes him his agent fo# such purpose, and it so appears on th# proofs ; yet it is clear that all other trading with, or acceptance from, a slave, of corn or other forbidden article, without permission in writing, is unlawful.

The point then presented is, whether a delivery of corn by a slave on his own‘(the slave’s) account, the owner being present and . observing the transaction, but giving no permission in writing, is a violation of the criminal law. The Judge below instructed the jury it was, and in this we concur.

We find no error in the proceedings‘011 the trial below, and order this to be certified to the Court, to the end that it may proceed to the final determination of the case.