State v. Gaus
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to Montgomery Circuit court. Indictment for trading with a slave, Without consent — -■ tried before Pickens, J. In this case, defendant was convicted on an- indictment! for trading with a slave, without the consent of the mas'-ter or' owner. On the trial, the State failed to prove that the slave had not the leave or consent of the master or’ owner.
Read the full summary
Error to Montgomery Circuit court. Indictment for trading with a slave, Without consent — -■ tried before Pickens, J. In this case, defendant was convicted on an- indictment! for trading with a slave, without the consent of the mas'-ter or' owner. On the trial, the State failed to prove that the slave had not the leave or consent of the master or’ owner. The court below was requested by defendant-to charge the jury, that such proof was necessary to support the indictment, which was refused-.- The court-charged the jury, that if the trading with the slave was proved, the consent or authority…
1Opinion of the CourtGol-Dthwaite-, J.
The rule with respect to the-proof of negative averments- in indictments, appears to have been subject to much change in the English courts, —they sometimes ho-ldi-ng,- that the prosecution was bound to establish the negative fact averred ; as in the cases of Rex vs. Rogers, 3 Camp. 654; Rex vs. Hazy ef *634al. 2 Carr. & Payne, 458 — and at other times declaring, that proof of the act was sufficient to support a conviction, unless the defendant shewed the circumstances which could alone render it lawful — (Rex vs. Turner, 5 M. & S. 206; Rex vs. Hanson, cited 2 Russel on Crimes, 693.)
The case of…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Blann v. BealSupreme Court of Alabama · 1843