Redden v. Spruance

4 Del. 217

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: July 5, 1845
• Status: Published

Opinion

The Court

granted the nonsuit on the ground that there was no proof that the defendants carried the slave off with knowledge that he-was a runaway slave of Wm. O. Redden. Even admitting that there was evidence that defendants carried the slave in their stage, at all sufficient to go to the jury, there is no evidence whatever from which the jury could draw any conclusion of a knowledge on the part of the defendants or their agent, that this was a runaway-slave. Nor is there such evidence of neglecting to make due inquiry as will charge the defendants. The negro man who was taken up near Canterbury, and permitted to ride for a short distance, presented himself at no unusual time or place, nor under any suspicious circumstances, as the stage driver testifies. The stage upward from Milford always passes the place where this passenger was taken up in the night; and it is usual to take passengers up thus on the road. The driver did make inquiry of this passenger; the only investiga tian that he could make under the circumstances, for it was dark and he could not then read the pass which was freely offered, and the passenger was turned off the stáge before it arrived at Camden, where the pass could have been examined by a light. Under these circumstances, a passenger claiming admission into a public stage at the usual time and place, claiming to be a free man,- and offering the evidence of bis freedom, the driver would not have been justified in refusing him a passage, at least until he arrived where he could make further inquiry in relation to him; and this, in our opinion, does not amount to any evidence of negligence, such as can charge the defendants with culpably aiding the escape of this slave; even if the passenger so taken up was the slave of plaintiff, of which we express no opinion, because on that point there may be said to' be evidence, which ought to be weighed by the jury.

Houston and Layton, for plaintiff. Wootten and Bates, for defendants.

There is no other proof of knowledge. The conversation of Watson with Jefferson, which is proved by Palmer, and which would have been sufficient to put him on his guard; and would have required of him the strictest investigation as to his passengers; was" not until the afternoon of Sunday, after the stage (which passes in the morning) had gone to Wilmington, having as a passenger “a black man,” who is now said to have been the plaintiff’s slave, and in reference to whom this conversation was had. Admitting again, that the identity of these ought to be left -to the jury, there is nothing in this conversation which proves knowledge in Mr. Jefferson or any other of the defendants, that their passenger was not a free man,

As it respects the point that the plaintiff cannot recover without proof that all the defendants sued were joint owners, we incline against the defendants, on the ground that in actions in tort, against several defendants where the tort may be joint, the plaintiff may recover against a part of the defendants only. (1 Chit. Plead. 86.)

We therefore direct a nonsuit, with liberty to defendants to move to take off the nonsuit after the decision of the Court of Appeals, on the exception to the decision of the court, ruling out the contents of the letter written by the witness, Register, to the plaintiff; this question being, on motion, reserved for- hearing before all the judges. (See post, June term, 1846^)