
    MAY 31, 1803.
    Francis Ratcliff v. Fayette County Court.
    
      Upon a writ of error to reverse an order of said Court, directing sale to be made of Humphrey, a negro man slave, the property of said Hatclijf.
    
    Although the statute authorizing the county court to order the sale of a negro, who is permitted'to go at large hy his master, does not, in terms, require a notice of the proceeding to he given to the master; yet, the court will presume such was the intention, and an order for such a sale, where the record does not show notice to the owner, is erroneous and must he reversed.
   One of the errors assigned in this case is, that it does not appear from the record that any legal process, summons, or other notice was served on Ratcliff, to give him an opportunity of defending a proceeding by which he might be divested of the right of a slave, and part of his value.

This assignment is well founded, and must be fatal to the proceeding complained of. Indeed, the act of assembly under which this proceeding was had, does not direct any such notice to be served, but the principles of law and justice which govern all judicial proceedings in this country indubitably required it, and the court will not presume the intention of the legislature to have been otherwise, from their silence on the case in this act. It need not be observed, that a proceeding of the kind, without a previous notification to the owner of a slave, would be peculiarly dangerous, because the slave, the informant, and the witnesses might all have improper motives for procuring the sale which the act authorizes. Therefore, it is considered by the court, that the orders aforesaid be quashed and set aside, and that each party pay their own costs in this behalf expended, which is ordered to be certified to the said court.  