
    Thomas M. Westbrook and others v. The State.
    A free negro cannot sell himself into slavery.
    Appeal from Hill. Tried below before the Hon. N. W. Battle.
    This was an indictment against the appellants, Thomas M., John B., and Stephen Westbrook, for imprisoning and kidnapping Lewis John Bedrolls, a free negro, for the purpose of detaining him as a slave.
    There was evidence tending to prove that Bedrolls, as a free negro, had made a contract to sell himself to the defendant, John B. Westbrook, as a slave; and had, for a considerable length of time, subsequently to the said contract, lived with him as his slave, and had been treated as such by the said West-brook.
    The district attorney asked the court to charge the jury, “ that a contract made with a free African person, by a white person, for the sale of such free African, is null and void, and shows no title, or shadow of title, to the said free African; the said African having no power to sell himself.” This charge was given, with the qualification, “ that if the jury believe from the evidence, that there was such a contract between the defendants and Redrolls ; and that the defendants exercised acts of ownership over the said African, and enjoyed his service for a considerable length of time, believing, in good faith, that they had a right thereto, they are not guilty, as charged in the bill of indictment, and ought to be acquitted.”
    
      Nowlin Herring, for the appellants.
    
      Attorney-G-eneral, for the appellee.
   Bell, J.

The only question in this case, which requires notice, arises upon the action of the court in giving to the jury the instruction asked by the district attorney, modified as it was by the court. The instruction asked by the district attorney, involved the proposition, that a free negro cannot sell himself into slavery. The court gave the instruction, qualified by an additional instruction, decidedly favorable to the defendants.

We think the court did not err in giving the instruction, as will be seen by reference to our opinion in the case of Westbrook v. Mitchell, (supra, 560.) The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  