
    DANIEL SHAWN v. RISDON BISHOP.
    Court of Common Pleas. Kent.
    May, 1804.
    
      Rodney’s Notes.
    
    
      
      Clayton, Ridgely [for plaintiff]. Rodney, Vandyke [for defendant] .
    Alexander Grayson. The declaration or acknowledgment of Samuel Cloak that he was indebted to plaintiff for the amount of purchase money of a negro man, say $200, offered by plaintiffs and objected to by defendants [on the ground] that he being no party to the .suit, his acknowledgments could not be admitted. The Court affirmed the objection, except that his declarations might be given to repel anything contained in a deposition of said Cloak, if it should be admitted. Exception prayed.
    Abraham Pierce, Esq. Cloak acknowleded or assumed to pay me a debt of £50 or £60 for Mr. Shawn.
    The above admitted per Curiam as competent, and counsel prayed an exception. [1] Del.Laws 162, 328.
    An account offered (by way of book) of Daniel Shawn, who could not read or write, in which is a charge of $200 for a Negro.
    The Court were of opinion such a charge, unaided by other evidence, was not a proper charge in a book of accounts, but whether such charge is supported by other evidence we shall leave to the jury. The objection was supported by Rodney and Vandyke. Clayton and Ridgely, contra. To the above opinion defendant’s counsel excepted.
    Hugh Torbet [testified] to prove he received several sums of Shawn for Cloak.
    
      Nathaniel Boyer and John Stanton [testified] to prove they received several sums of Shawn for Cloak.
    Ronald Harrington. Samuel Cloak resided here two or three years at least.
    
      Rodney, in his opening.
    If Cloak was insolvent, I contend no damages were sustained by his removal, etc.
    
      Ridgely for plaintiff.
    We prove debts due to Shawn of £78, also several other sums. Cloak, it appears, had money when he went off.
    
      Vandyke for defendant.
    If Cloak was insolvent, Shawn received no damage, nor can any be recovered.
    
      Rodney.
    
    This is a penal statute, and the master is not liable in this action, though he may be in a civil, and even in trespass.
    
      Clayton.
    
    
      ■Ridgely.
    
   Per Curiam.

This cause has been fully argued [on] points in dispute between the counsel etc. The Act they call a badge of slavery and antiquated, is improperly so called, and is now in force, and as the law of the land, is part of their evidence. The Act is not a penal law in the sense they speak of it. If Bishop by himself or his agent conveyed Cloak out, he is answerable, and the master in a civil suit is answerable for his slave to the . amount of the slave. If a debt from Cloak to Shawn be proved, you may find to the amount of it, provided it appears to you Cloak was solvent to that amount.

Verdict for plaintiff £78.10.0.  