This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: State v. Reed. From Hertford. SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 9 N.C. 454; 1823 N.C. LEXIS 37; 2 Hawks 454 June, 1823, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] This was an indictment for the murder of a slave, which concluded at Common Law. The prisoner was found guilty, and moved in arrest, because of the insufficiency of the indictment. The motion was overruled and sentence passed, from which the prisoner appealed. HEADNOTES: An indictment for the murder of a slave, which concludes at Common Law, is good. COUNSEL: Hogg for the prisoner, contended, that slavery was unknown to the Common Law--(11 State Trials 342, Somerset's case)--and thatthe killing of a slave was not murder at the Common Law, whatever it might be by statute. If it should be said that a slave is embraced within theterms of Coke's definition of the subject of murder, the same description applies to every other crime against the person; and yet he is not protectedby Common Law from assault and battery, mayhem, imprisonment, &c. But in this country the subject has been fully examined, and the argumentof HALL, Judge, in The State v. Boon, Taylor's Rep. 252, is unanswerably correct, and exhausts the subject. JUDGES: TAYLOR, Chief-Justice, HENDERSON, Judge. HALL, Judge, dissentiente. OPINIONBY: TAYLOR; HENDERSON OPINION: [*455] TAYLOR, Chief-Justice.--I think there was no necessity to conclude the indictment against the form of the statute, for a law ofparamount obligation to [**2] the statute was violated by the offence, the Common Law, founded upon the law of nature, and confirmed byrevelation. The opinion I delivered in The State v. Boon, remains unchanged, to which, and the effect of the act of 1817, as stated in State v.Tackett, (1 Hawks 210, 216,) I beg which, and the effect of the act of 1817, as stated in State v....
View Full Document