
    STATE v. WILLIAM PATRICK
    Thai a person “ was generally reputed to be free, and had acted and passed as a free man,” can be adduced in a trial to operate against him, as well as when such evidence operates in his favor.
    This was an indictment against the defendant, as a free negro, for carrying fire arms, tried before Saundees, J., at the last Spring Term of Brunswick Superior Court.
    . In order to show that the defendant was a free negro, the solicitor for the State, asked a witness whether the defendant passed as and was reputed in the neighborhood in which he lived, to be'a free negro. The witness answered in the affirmative. On the question being propounded, the defendant’s counsel objected, and on the admission of the evidence, he excepted. To a question of the solicitor, the witness stated he had the appearance, and looked like a negro. This was also objected to, but admitted by the Court, and the defendant’s counsel again excepted. Verdict, guilty. Judgment and appeal.
    
      Attorney General, for the State.
    Baker, for the defendant.
   Battle, J.

It is clearly settled that it is evidence in favor of a negro, in a suit for his freedom, that he is generally reputed to be free, and has always acted and passed as a free man. See Jarman v. Humphrey, ante 28, and Brookfield v. Stanton, ante 156. If such evidence be admissible to establish the fact of a negro’s being free, when it is to operate in his favor, it seems to us, that it must equally be so when it is to' operate against him.

That a man’s color may be proved to show that he is a negro, is a proposition too plain to admit of a doubt. State v. Chavers, 5 Jones’ Rep. 11.

Peb Curiam, Judgment affirmed.  