
    The State against Morris Greenwood. The State against the same.
    Charleston,
    May, 1817.
    ffi^'pcrSn"of colour, before ü magistrate,totrepan the person, byd hif'distre"^ =r , ¿“ñished, presintió pro"”cute; nor shall suiter “wmíeif Kcting by1 «a?rant from the magistrate. A constable who sets on foot a false
    These were two indictments against the defendant, for assaults and false imprisonment. One . « 7 r* .r* i i on the person 01 Head, a tree man oi colour, aud * the other on the person of Robinson, also a free man 0f colour, on both of which the defendant was convicted. The evidence in both cases was substan- . tia«y thesame,and consisted principally of confessions voluntarily made by the defendant, and „ amounted to this : The defendant fabricated a charge against these persons, whom he knew to be free, and procured a warrant of commitment from Justice JYobbs, and confined them in gaol, where they were kept, until they consented to indenture themselves to a man by the name of Haslcet, who pretended that he would befriend them, by paying seventy or eighty dollars to defray the expenses of the prosecution against them, and as an accommodation of the sham accusation, they were then, by the order of the same Justice, released from prison, and brought before him, where they executed indentures to Haslcet, who then took charge of them, and they shortly after disappeared, and have never since been heard of, notwithstanding the officers of the Charleston police have made the most diligent inquiry. The defendant, who was a constable, also acknovriedged that he did the act, for the purpose of making money of them, and exulted that he was in no danger, as they had been sent off, where their complaints could not be heard; supposing that their presence was indispensably necessary to his conviction.
    A motion was made for a new trial, on several grounds, but it is believed that they are comprehended in the single inquiry, whether the conviction was warranted by law and evidence, as they are questions of fact and not of law ?
    These cases were tried before Mr. Justice Grimieé, at Charleston, in January Term, 1817.
   Johnson, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The argument in this case was predicated on a supposition, that it was necessary to the conviction of the defendant, to take that part of his confession only, which operated against him, inasmuch, as it appeared, that he committed the assault and imprisonment under the authority of a J ustice’s warrant, and that there had been a violation of that rule of law which requires, that that the whole of a party’s confessions should be taken together. This is undoubtedly a correct rule; but it does not appear, that it has been violated by the conviction. The defence, however, if allowed, would be a violation of it, for it seeks the exclusion of that which makes against, and insists on that only, which goes to exculpate him. ff his confession had gone no further than to admit, that he acted only in the discharge of his ’ J . . duty as a constable, under a magistrate’s warrant, surely the conviction would have been wrong; ^ ° it went further, the charge against these men was founded in the basest falsehood, fabricated by the defendant, for the nefarious purpose of enslaving them for life, in which it is feared he has been but too successful, with a view, to use his own language, “ to make money of them.” Nor do I think that the argument, that the defendant ought not to be convicted, unless the persons injured had complained, is better founded. It is true, that the injured party may complain, but it is equally true, that it is the right of any individual, nay, a duty which they owe to the community, to bring to justice those who violate the laws. I am of opinion, that the conviction was right, and that a new trial ought not to be granted.

J. B. White, for the motion.

Richardson, Attorney General, contra.

The other J udges concurred.  