
    THE STATE vs. ALEXANDER DUCKWORTH.
    A1! indictment. upon the 29th smmI'o of rh. 107, of R>v. Cede,is sufficient if if uvors that the defendant tit 1 “ per nit the said slave I’.iygy to ket>p h-ima ti h-rsilf as a fro.') p>rs>r;." • A i I in the second Court, did “ connive at mid negro f,lav<* keeping hons» to herself as a free person."
    A, Iving the owner rtf a fiuile sIav-% Isft, fcna county several years befrw® fit - ti -di i» of the indictment. At the time of going away ha convty<i! the h' .us» *nd lot in which the s! «vs livid, t« the defen I mt, and give him s'so a nuts fir $50. in ronsideiation that the defendant w-tild sup-pn-t the slave am? her husA-and, hath being old, mr the rest of their lives,, T «is is a sala of the slave from A to the defendant.
    This was an indictment tried before Howard1, Judge, at Eurke Superior Court, Full Term, 1863. The indictment wh.s as follows:
    The jurors for the State on their oath, present that Alexander Duckworth, &c . being the owner of a certain femado negro slave, named Peggy, on the &c.,- unlawfully did permit said negro slav'e Peggy to keep House to herself as a free person, contrary to the form, &c.
    And the jurors, &e., further present that the said Á. D, being, the owner, &c., did unlawfully connive at said negro slave Peggy, keeping house to herself as a free person, &e«
    The witnesses testifiedthat the slave was the,property of one Smyth, who moved from Burke County several years ago ; that she was reputed since that time to be the property of the defendant; that when Smyth left the County, he conveyed the house and lotdn which the slave lived, to the defendant, and gave him a note for fifty dollars in consideration that he would take the slave and her husband, both old negroes, and take care of them the rest of their lives ; that for a year or two after Smyth left, the defendant did furnish them with wood, provisions, &m, but for several years last past, he has done nothing for the woman, the man being dead, and she has had to support herself a# she could, by begging and what little work she could do. And that the defendant lias not of late exercised any control or supervision over her, hut has permitted, her to act entirely as a free woman.
    . The Court charged the jury that the possession of the slave having been passed from Smyth to the defendant, tha question was whether the contract between Smyth and the defendant was at common law, a contract of bailment or sale, and that this was a question of const] action for tho Court; that as the interest conveyed was the whole interest in the slave, and the obligation of the defendant the full duty of master or owner, it amounted to a sale, and tha title passed to the defendant. The defendant excepted to the instructions given by the Court, to the jury. Verdict for the Slate and judgment accordingly.
    
      Winston, Sr. for the State.
    Ko counsel for defendant in this Court.
   MaNly, J.

The Court below put, as we think, the proper construction upon the transaction between Smyth and the defendant. It passed the ownership of the slave to the defendant for reasons very clearly given by the Court, and we deem it unnecessary to add more.

Looking into the record we find the indictment has not employed all the phrases used in the statute for the description of the offence. ' The statute provides “that no slave shall go at large as a freeman, exercising his own discretion in the employment of his time. Nor shall any slave keep house to him or herself as a free person, exercising the like discretion in the employment of his or her time; and in case the owner of the slave consent to the same or con'nive thereat, he. shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.’5

The indictment charges thát defendant being the owner of the slave “did permit her to keep house to herself as a free person,” omitting the words “exercising her discretion in the employment of her time.”

We do not perceive that the words omitted would give any other different signification to the words ulsed than they express standing alone. To Jeeep house to oneself as a free person involves with sufficient precision and certainty the exercise of one’'s discretion in the employment of his time, and no additional words would seem to be necessary to convey that idea ; although it is best, and we therefore recommend the use of the terms and all the terms deemed proper by the legislature for defining the offence. Yet it is not necessary, provided the sense be perfectly preserved without. .' . •

For like reasons we .are o* opinion that the substitution of the word ‘permit’ for the word ‘consent’ does not vitiate the indictment. ’ *■

There is no error and this must be certified that the Superior Court of law for Burke County may proceed according to law.  