A person who holds possession of a slave

without

right or ti

tle, altho'

be not

criminal, is liable for expenses, to which

ble claim, and to subtract from the owner, profits which the offender has no reason or pretence for claiming.

4.

ROQUET V. RICHARDSON. March T. 1832. 3 Louisiana Rep. 452.

Damages were claimed from the defendant, on the ground of having concealed and employed a runaway slave belonging to the plaintiff. The general issue was pleaded, and it appeared from the testimony, that a female slave aged about twelve years, was brought his motives to the defendant's house by a carman, to whom she had stated she was free. She remained with the defendant for nearly a year, during which time every publicity was given to the fact of her living there, and attempts made to discover whether she was a slave, and the owner to whom she belonged. There was no paper published in the is put to reparish where the defendant resided; nor did it contain a jail ;-it was further shown that the defendant was a justice of the peace. The plaintiff proved property in the slave; that he had advertised her in the papers of New Orleans as a runaway, and expended one hundred dollars in endeavoring to recover her. There was judgment for the defendant in the court below, and the plaintiff appealed.

cover the

slave,

Per Cur. Mathews, J. In this case, damages are claimed from the defendant, on account of the concealment and detention of a female slave, the property of the plaintiff. The court below rendered judgment in favor of the former, from which the latter appealed. The amount claimed is in conformity with the acts of the legislature, (part of the Black Code,) passed in 1807 and 1809, and which relate to the penalty and punishment for harboring and concealing runaway slaves. These acts seem intended to fix the penalties to which offenders against their provisions may be legally subjected on conviction; they are pecuniary, but may be changed into imprisonment, if the persons convicted has not the means necessary to pay to owners of slaves the compensation accorded. See, Moreau's Dig. p. 119-20. In addition to the compensation allowed to owners, by the first article, a fine is imposed for the benefit of the parish, wherein the offender may be convicted, by the second. Same book, p. 121. These laws are evidently penal, and have relation to public offences. Whether the owner of a slave, which may have been concealed or hired without leave, can pursue the person offending, in a civil action, and on proof of the

offence recover the penalty prescribed by law? is a question which the present case (according to the testimony,) does not require to be settled, as we are of opinion with the court below that the proof does not establish any criminal concealment or illegal hiring against the defendant. The petition contains a claim for damages to the amount of one hundred dollars, exclusive of the penalty fixed by law. The testimony is somewhat contradictory as to the value of the services of the slave. She is a girl about twelve years of age, and if healthy, her work and labor must be presumed to be worth something. Be this, however, as it may, it is in evidence that one hundred dollars were paid by the husband of the plaintiff, in recovering possession of this slave. Although the conduct of the defendant, as shown by the proof of the cause, cannot be held as criminal, yet viewed either as an individual or a justice of the peace, there is such remissness and negligence on his part, as ought to subject him to all loss and damages actually suffered by the plaintiff in relation to her property, of which he had possession, without right or title. Judgment reversed.

5.

STRAWBRIDGE V. TURNER, et al. March T. 1836. 9 Louisiana

Rep. 213.

owners of

a steam

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover from the Where the defendants, owners of the steamboat, Chesapeake, the value of a slave alleged to have been illegally employed by the captain of the boat as a hand, without the authority or consent of the plaintiff; and while in this service was drowned.

Per Cur. Martin, J. The plaintiff claims the value of a slave, employed as a hand on board the steamboat Chesapeake, by the defendants, without his authority or consent, and who was drowned by jumping or falling overboard. This case was before this court last year, and remanded for a new trial. See 8 Louisiana Reports 537.

boat sufferto be employed as a hand on board, by the cap

ed a slave

tain, with

out the au

thority and consent of and he was accidentaly drowned,

his master,

the owners

of the boat

were re

for his

After the cause was remanded, and before the second trial, the plaintiff amended his petition, by the addition of an averment, that the defendants, by due diligence, might have prevented the slave sponsible being employed as a hand. The parties went to trial on this addi- value. tional allegation to the former cause of action. There was a second verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendants appealed.

The fact of the slave being employed as a hand on board the

steamboat, was fully proved. It further appears, that the plaintiff on hearing his slave was on board, went there with the intention of arresting him, and in the attempt, the boy, in endeavoring to effect his escape, fell overboard, and was drowned.

The defendant's counsel, urged with some earnestness in the argument of the case, that the hiring and employment of the slave was not the immediate cause of the drowning; but that it was occasioned immediately by the pursuit of the master.

The plaintiff on the other hand, produced evidence which shows clearly the want of due diligence in the owners of the steamboat, in suffering the slave in question to be engaged for several days in unloading and loading her in the city of New Orleans, where they resided. This they could have prevented and did not. The plaintiff has had two verdicts in his favor. His slave absconded, and went on board the steamboat in an illegal and improper manner. He was illegally and without authority hired by the master, of which fact the jury seem to have believed the owners had notice. It does not appear that they made any inquiry whether he was employed on board with or without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, his master. The verdict must therefore stand, and remain undisturbed.

INDEX.

of slaves, [See Liabilities to mas- ADMINISTRATION, [See Emancipation.]

ADVERTISEMENT,

57

Parol, loan of slaves under, [See AUTHORITY,
Possession.]

aid of magistrate, to prevent trans-
portation of slave, [See Emanci-
pation.]
ALLEGATION,

that a slave was a thief, [See
Warranty]
ANIMO, Morandi, [See Emancipation.]
ANCESTORS,

Indian, descent from, ¡See Judg-
ment. Freedom.]

AUNT,

maternal, judgment in favor of,
[See Judgment.]
BAILEE, [See Consideration.]
BAR,

for recovery of Dower. [See De-

BASTARDY,

state, removal of slaves to, [See BATTERY,
Emancipation.]

of warranty to other chattels, [See BEATING Slaves.
Warranty.]
BENEFIT,

of slaves, [See Liabilities to master.] BENEVOLENCE,