
    The State vs. E. C. Lefronty.
    Tried before his Honor Judge Butlek, Charleston, January Terra, 1836.
    The defendant was indicted for selling spirituous liquors to a slave, contrary to the act of 1834. There was but one witness examined, Richard Wish. He said that he was one of the marshals of the city. He suspected that spirituous liquors were sold to slaves in the shop of Daniel Becker <& Co.; and that with a view to detect the offend» ers, he gave Mr. Mintzing’s Sam three cents to go into the store to buy liquor ; Sam went in, and came out with' some whiskey. The witness went into the store immediately, and found defendant in it-» he was the only person in the store. There were bottles and doeaiv ters in the store, which appeared to have liquor in them. There was a si cm over the door, “ Daniel Becher & Co.” Upon his cross ex» animation, the witness said the negro Sam worked at the saw yard of Siííly & Mintzing. That he had seen Mm working there for the last 3 or 4 years ; and that he supposed Sam to belong to Sifly & Mini. sing, but he could not say positively — he inferred it only.
    I charged the jury that I thought it material, not only, that the in» dictment should charge the sale or delivery of spirituous liquor to a slave, but that the names of the slave and his master should also be set out 5 and that it was necessary to sustain, by evidence, the aver» znents in the indictment. The indictment in this case alleged that defendant and Becker, (the last of whom was not on trial) sold and deli» vered spirituous liquors to Sam, belonging to Jacob F. Mintzing. I have detailed all the evidence that was offered to sustain the charge. I thought the evidence sufficient to shew that defendants are shopkeepers and venders of liquors. The defendant contended that it wart sot sufficiently proved that Sam belonged to Jacob F. Mintzmg I told the jury that there was evidence enough to authorize a verdict of guilty ; but that if they thought the proof not sufficient, they were ■ at liberty to acquit the defendant, for the evidence was by no means conclusive. If there was any doubt, the defendant could have solved it. The jury found the defendant guilty.
    The defendant appeals on the grounds annexed.
    A. P. BUTLER.
    
      Grounds of Appeal.
    
    1st. That there was no proof on the trial, that the defendants C. E. La Fronty and Daniel Becker, or either of them, were vendors or retailers of spirituous liquors, as charged in the indictment.
    2d. That there was no proof that C. E. Lafronty and Daniel Becker, did (as alleged in the indictment) sell spirituous liquors to a slave.
    3d. That the averment in the indictment, that C. E. Lafronty and Daniel Becker did sell, deliver, &c., spirituous liquors, to a certain slave named Sam, the property of J. F. Mintzing, was not only wholly unsustained by proof, but that the only evidence offered, shewed Sam to be the joint property of SiHIy & Mintzing.
    WILLIAM RICE, Attorney for Defendant.
    
    Rice, for the motion.
    AttoRNey General, contra.
    Filed 10th May, 1836.
   The grounds of appeal do not question the correctness of the charge of the Judge below ; they insist, that upon the facts, the defendant should not have been convicted. We are however unable to discover any error in the verdict of the jury. The motion is dismissed.

JOHN B. O’NEALL,

J. S. RICHARDSON,

H NRY W. DESAUSSURE,

WM. HARPER,

JOSIAH J. EVANS,

B. J. EARLE,  