Opinion
(March Term, 1792.)
An indictment for trespass in taking and carrying away negroes out of the possession of one may be sustained, although it may have been done at the command of the party who had the real title to the property.
INDICTMENT for trespass in taking and carrying away two negroes from and out of the possession and ownership of William Bailey. After the facts were proven on the part of the State, Mr. Avery, on the part of the defendants, offered to produce several witnesses to prove that the property of these negroes was in one Samuel Scott of South Carolina, and that the defendants had taken them for him and by his command.
Property here is not the question. The law prescribes a method whereby Scott might have regained possession of that property if he had a right to it — that is to say, by a civil suit. Such methods of acquiring possession as these defendants have taken are in violation of the rules of law, and of evil example to the public; and if such kind of evidence should be received, would render property of this kind very insecure; for great numbers of negroes have been brought hither from other states, and they may all be taken and carried away again to other states, if there should be any claimants of them there, and the honest purchaser here would be left almost without a remedy.
There was a verdict for the State.
See S. v. Flowers, 4 N.C. 13; S. c., 6 N.C. 225; S. v. McDowell, 8 N.C. 449.