Hickerson v. United States

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Hickerson v. United States

30 F. Cas. 1087, 2 Hayw. & H.D.C. 228, 1856 U.S. App. LEXIS 605

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedDecember 18, 1856

StatusPublished

This text of 30 F. Cas. 1087 (Hickerson v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hickerson v. United States, 30 F. Cas. 1087, 2 Hayw. & H.D.C. 228, 1856 U.S. App. LEXIS 605 (circtddc 1856).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT

refused to give the instructions, but gave the following: “The court cannot say to the jury that the fact of the defendant having inflicted the whipping in a stable entitled him to acquittal. If they believe it to have been so from the evidence in the case, it is necessary that they should believe from the evidence that the whipping took place near a public street or highway, and that it was to the terror, disturbance, annoyance and common nuisance of the good citizens of the United States, for it is so charged in the indictment. It must amount, and you must believe that it was a nuisance, for a technical assault and battery on a slave is not indictable. A master or hirer of a slave, or his manager, has a right to correct a slave that belongs to him, or to whose services he is entitled by hiring, but if he does so in a cruel or inhuman manner in such a place, whether it be in a street, a house or stable, as to be an annoyance or nuisance to the citizens, whose pleasure or business carry them -near-the scene of the infliction, he is indictable. The question of nuisance, or no nuisance, is one of fact exclusively for the jury to decide.” To which ruling and instructions of the court, the defendant, by his counsel, excepts, and prays that this bill of exception may be signed, sealed and enrolled, which is done accordingly.

Judgment of criminal court affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE COURT

refused to give the instructions, but gave the following: “The court cannot say to the jury that the fact of the defendant having inflicted the whipping in a stable entitled him to acquittal. If they believe it to have been so from the evidence in the case, it is necessary that they should believe from the evidence that the whipping took place near a public street or highway, and that it was to the terror, disturbance, annoyance and common nuisance of the good citizens of the United States, for it is so charged in the indictment. It must amount, and you must believe that it was a nuisance, for a technical assault and battery on a slave is not indictable. A master or hirer of a slave, or his manager, has a right to correct a slave that belongs to him, or to whose services he is entitled by hiring, but if he does so in a cruel or inhuman manner in such a place, whether it be in a street, a house or stable, as to be an annoyance or nuisance to the citizens, whose pleasure or business carry them -near-the scene of the infliction, he is indictable. The question of nuisance, or no nuisance, is one of fact exclusively for the jury to decide.” To which ruling and instructions of the court, the defendant, by his counsel, excepts, and prays that this bill of exception may be signed, sealed and enrolled, which is done accordingly.

Judgment of criminal court affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 F. Cas. 1087, 2 Hayw. & H.D.C. 228, 1856 U.S. App. LEXIS 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hickerson-v-united-states-circtddc-1856.