
    Lewis Hogg. v. A. Keller, et al.
    
    The law does not require the master of a slave to state in- a pass to what place the slave shall go. It is sufficient if it express a leave of absence for a particular time.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Richardson, at Newberry, March Term, 1819.
    This was an action to recover damages for unlawfully whipping the plaintiff’s negro. It was proven that the defendant Keller, styling himself captain of a patrol, and the other defendants, acting under his authority, did whip the plaintiff’s negro, who had a pass from his master. The' number of stripes was not many, nor '-were they severely laid on. Defendant attempted to justify under the patrol law, and on the ground that the pass was not according to law, because it did not state to'what place the negro was going. One of the witnesses said each one gave him some stripes, and that this was the usual mode of whipping by patrols.
    The presiding judge charged the jury that the case was already made out, and that the only question was, what should be the amount of damages.
    The jury thought proper to find a verdict for the defendant; and a motion was now made for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was wholly contrary to law, and without any evidence whatever, on the part of the defendant.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Colcock, J.

The law does not require a master to state in every pass, to what place the negro shall be permitted to go. It is sufficient if it express a leave of absence for such a time. See 2 Brev. Dig. 231. Grimke’s P. L. 164. The defendants therefore, were guilty of a trespass on the defendant’s property, and he is entitled to a verdict. It is highly proper to- protect these officers, when acting within the limits of their authority; but nothing is so offensive to the law as to violate the principles of jus-*1141 ^ce an<^ humanity under the semblance of authority. *Shall it be -* considered a justification that these defendants thought the ticket an unlawful one ! Shall ignorance of that law under which they were acting, and from which they derived their authority, excuse them ? This would be a violation of all law, and place the slaves of the country at the mercy of every unprincipled and unfeeling man, who may be clothed with this brief authority.

It is the duty as well as the interest of every master to protect his slave from unnecessary punishment, and to resist the abuse of legal authority. However small, therefore, the injury to the slave, the plaintiff should recover as much damages as would carry costs. But I think it highly questionable, whether, in this case, the captain of this patrol was not actuated by some improper motive. Could he have passed over that clause in the Act, which authorizes masters to permit their slaves to go abroad with tickets, and read one in the same Act, which authorizes him to punish a slave that has no ticket ? It is by no means probable. Nor am I satisfied with the evidence offered, to prove that they were a patrol. It is a temporary appointment, and therefore I conceive should be proven by the captain of the beat, who has detailed them for that service.

Nott and Johnson, JJ., concurred.

Gantt and RiohaRDSON, JJ., dissented. 
      
       1740, 7 Stat. 398, § 3; see Acts, 1722, 7 Stat. 373, § 5 j' 1800, 7 Stat. 441; 1829, 8 Stat. 538, § 4; 1839,. 11 Stat. 58, \ 5.
     
      
       Ante, 87.
     