
    Shepherd Clanton vs. John D. Young.
    
      Contract — Reward—Condition Precedent.
    
    
      B. advertised a reward of three hundred dollars to be “paid for the apprehension and delivery to the jail of Kershaw District” of a slave charged with murder. A. apprehended and delivered the slave to a magistrate of Kershaw, who delivered him to a constable, in whose custody he remained until he was tried a few days afterwards and acquitted. Held, that A. not having complied with the condition to deliver the slave to the jail of Kershaw district, was not entitled to the reward.
    BEFORE GLOVER, J., AT CHESTERFIELD, SPRING TERM, 1857.
    The report of bis Honor, the presiding Judge, is as follows:
    “ The plaintiff sued in assumpsit.to recover the amount of three hundred dollars, which the defendant promised to pay for the apprehension of a slave named Hiram. The following advertisement was published, at the defendant’s request, in the 1 Camden Journal and Temperance Advocate.’
    “ ‘ THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS REWARD,
    “ ‘ Will be paid for the apprehension and delivery, to the jail of Kershaw District, of Hiram, a negro man, the property of L. W. R._Blair, a fugitive from justice, who stands indicted for the murder of Mrs. Jane Young, committed on Friday, the 11th inst. Said negro is about five feet eight or ten inches high — thick set — has heavy eyebrows with small eyes — holds his hands far back in walking — is said to have a small scar on the back of his hand, from a burn — with a scar running through it caused by a cut from a knife. He is about thirty-five years of age, and is quick spoken and intelligent.
    ‘"JOHN D. YOUNG.
    “ 1 Oamden, S. G., FeVy 22, 1853.
    “ ‘ Ealeigh Standard,’ ‘ Spirit of the Age,’ ‘ Greensboro’ Patriot,’ and ‘ Petersburg Intelligencer,’ will copy four times, weekly, and forward bills to this office for payment.”
    “Hiram was charged with the murder of Mrs. Young by her family, and was a runaway during most of the year 1858. After about one year the defendant, with Einley McCaskill, brought Hiram, so much reduced that some of the witnesses would not have known him, to Samuel P. Murchison, a magistrate of Kershaw district, who delivered him to Joel Yarborough, his constable, in whose custody he continued until he was tried, a few days after, by a Court of Magistrate and Freeholders. At this Court Samuel P. Murchison presided, and the defendant attended as a witness, and the plaintiff as prosecutor. Hiram was acquitted.
    “ Murchison lived three or four miles from Blair’s, in the neighborhood of the alleged murder and was the nearest magistrate.
    “Alexander Martin lived two or three months, in the spring of 1853, with the plaintiff, ‘ as a hireling.’ He once saw Hiram at the spring — about one hundred and fifty yards from the house — and he informed Mrs. Clanton of it. Two or three weeks after this, he saw him in the plaintiff’s crib-loft in the fodder, but he said nothing about it. In the crib he also saw, a dozen times, a greasy.tin bucket, like thóse about the house, and a bottle which appeared to have had milk in it; but ‘ he never opened his mouth about it.’ Sam, Hiram’s father, lived on plaintiff’s plantation.
    “ After the trial of Hiram, the defendant stated, that he would not have hesitated to pay tbe plaintiff if Hiram had been taken to the jail of Kershaw.
    “ The jury was instructed, that in construing the defendant’s promise, they must look to his intent; that his object was the apprehension of Hiram and his trial for the alleged murder; that when the plaintiff arrested him, it was his duty to procure a commitment, whether as a runaway or as a criminal, and that the defendant’s liability did not depend upon a delivery of Hiram to the jail of Kershaw; and that when in the custody of the magistrate, he was authorized to place Hiram in the safe keeping of his constable, until the trial, without a commitment to jail.
    “ But if they believed that the plaintiff harbored Hiram, or that the apprehension of him was collusive, the jury was instructed to find for the defendant; and as this part of the defence depended on the circumstances stated by Martin, I did say to the jury that it was strange, that he had informed no one that Hiram was seen by him in the crib; but the witness’s credibility was submitted to them, without the strong language imputed to the presiding Judge by the fourth ground of appeal.
    “ The jury found for the plaintiff, three hundred dollars.”
    The defendant appealed and now moved this Court for a new trial, on the grounds:
    1. Because the delivery of the negro, Hiram to the jail of Kershaw District, according to the terms mentioned in the reward, was a condition precedent, and should have been strictly performed by the plaintiff before he was entitled to recover the reward.
    2. Because the Court ruled that a virtual performance of the condition precedent was sufficient.
    3. Because the Court ruled that the plaintiff’s delivery of Hiram to Esquire Murchison, who resided twenty three miles from Kershaw jail, and four or five miles from the place of capture, was a virtual performance of the condition.
    
      Clinton and Austin, for appellants,
    cited on first ground, Fpperly vs. Bailey, 3 Indiana E. 72; Cutter vs. Powell, 6 T. E. 326 ; Boone vs. Byre, see Note 1 H. B. 273 ; Law vs. Bouse, 3 Hill, 270; Breithaupt vs. Thurmond, 3 Eich. 216; Tharin vs. Fielding, 2 Eich. 361; Glazebroolc vs. Woodrow, 8 T. E. 370; Jones vs. Barclay, 2 Doug. 686; Fultz vs. Bouse, 6 Smedes & Marsh. 404; Tidd’s Pr. 384, and the authorities referred to in note (;n); 1 Salk, 171; Tidd’s Pr. 385. And on second and third grounds, Steph. N. P. Tit. Assumpsit, 305; Cutter vs. Powell, 6 D. & E. 320; 2 Pothier, 41; Kuy-kendall vs. Gilbreath, 3 Pike, 222; 1 Eoll, 422, 1. 45 ; 1 Eoll, 426, 1. 32; Co. L. 209, b; 1 Eoll. 427, 1. 50; Hob. 134; Wood vs. Ashe, 1 Stro. 407; Pribble vs. Baghurst, 1 Swans. 329 ; 3 Hill, 272; 1 Salk. 113.
    
      Inglis, contra,
    cited 2 Bac. Abr. 334, 335; 2 Johns. E. 307.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

WhitNBE, J.

The arguments and authorities adduced would lead us into a general summary of the principles governing matters of contract. In announcing our judgment it is not thought necessary to enter upon such an enlarged discussion.

This contract is in writing, and there is no dispute about its terms. The performance by the plaintiff of the services stipulated for by the defendant fixes the liability of the .latter. The promise to pay was founded on the apprehension and delivery to the jail of Kershaw District, a certain negro slave, an alleged fugitive from justice, charged with murder. The performance proved was an apprehension and delivery to a magistrate of tbe district, by whom tbe slave was delivered to a constable, in whose custody be continued until a trial was bad.

Tbis was not a strict compliance witb tbe terms stipulated. Was it a substantial compliance, sucb as should entitle tbe plaintiff to the reward which bad been offered l

Tbis Court has reached a conclusion adverse to the-plaintiff, and tbe facts disclosed perhaps well illustrate tbe substantial difference. But it is proper, and we prefer to apply tbe test upon general considerations.

Tbe delivery of a slave in tbe jail and at the Court House, places him in tbe midst of general and professional intelligence, and usually in a community free from any neighborhood feeling or improper bias.

Sucb a delivery would contemplate sucb participation on tbe part of those to whom it appropriately belonged, in tbe -conduct of tbe prosecution, as would be proper to secure tbe ends of justice, at least to the extent of securing a suitable presiding officer, 'and an intelligent and impartial jury. Sucb considerations have often moved tbe public mind to legislation on tbis subject.

If sucb means and ends are contemplated by a party offering a reward, tbe service is very inadequately performed, if in a given case tbe slave is delivered to a magistrate every way unsuited, and for reasons that need not be suggested tbe trial promptly proceeded witb, and tbe prosecution conducted by a stranger, or a partisan of tbe owner, and in a neighborhood remote from tbe Court House, tbe very atmosphere of which may be infected witb improper influences.

Tbe facts are all before the Court, and we do not see any purpose to be accomplished by protracting tbis litigation.

Tbe verdict of tbe jury is set aside and a nonsuit is ordered.

Wardlaw, Withers and MüNro, JJ., concurred.

Nonsuit ordered. 
      
      ) It is well settled that a promise to pay a reward on the apprehension of a felon, will support an action. Williams vs. Oarwardine, 5 C. & P. 566; Lancaster, vs. Walsh, 4 M. & W. 16; Ch. on Con. 10, note (gj, 544, note (v). R.
     