Page v. Vandegrift , 5 Del. 176 ( 1849 )

The Court

charged—1. That the intention of the act was to protect slave property, and to prevent it being carried off. Though it may be harsh or impolitic, the question for' the court was, what is the law? Plaintiff must prove that William Clensy was the slave of Mary Page; that Mary Page was a citizen or an inhabitant of this State; that the defendant was captain of the boat; and that he carried off the slave. Proof of having an individual in possession, with the reputation of a slave, and rendering service as a slave, is sufficient evidence in this proceeding, that he is a slave. If the plaintiff was a resident of Néw Castle county, it was sufficient proof of the citizenship or habitancy; the fact that defendant was captain of the boat being proved, the remaining question was whether he carried the boy, William Clensy out of the State.

It ought to be shown that Captain Vandegrift had the means of knowledge that the boy was on board. If boxed up as merchandize, he could not be liable; but if the boy went on board as a passenger, the captain was bound to know every body on board, and is liable.

There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff; and the judgment was afterwards reversed by the Court of Errors and Appeals, on a point of pleading, not involving any point ruled in the charge.