N'W YORK, duced, and earned his bread by winding cotton balls.
Sept. 1823.
The man in the house with him thought that his misfor-
The People tunes had in some degree injured his intellect. He lived
in Broom-street.

V.

Ryan.

Mr. Sampson opened the defence of the prisoner; and his case was summed up by Messrs. Graham and Price, who were followed by Mr. Maxwell, for the prosecution. The reporter has not room to do justice to their abilities, by even a transcript of their arguments, which were very lengthy.

The court left it to the jury, under all the circumstances of the case, whether the crime charged upon the prisoner was murder or manslaughter, or justifiable homicide; and observed, if the jury were of opinion that the prisoner committed the act while the deceased was in criminal intercourse with his wife, it would not be murder, nor even manslaughter, but would be justifiable homicide, se defedendo. Her consent would be of no avail to increase or extenuate the crime, if in the husband's presence. If, however, the jury should believe there was a criminal connection between the deceased and the wife of the prisoner, as there was no positive, although there was presumptive evidence of it, it would be for them to decide, from the circumstances, whether the homicide was committed after time for reflection had been given or not. The court recognized the rules laid down by the District Attorney in his opening to the jury.

The jury found the defendant guilty of manslaughter. And he was sentenced to the state prison fourteen years.

The prisoners were charged in an indictment with a Burglary canburglary, committed in breaking open Mr. Carpenter's not be inferred by finding house, on the night of the 5th day of September, 1823, stolen properand carrying away four firkins of butter.

The store was left secured in the usual manner at 10 o'clock, and was found broken open, and the property carried away, before sunrise the next morning. The parties were arrested the same day, and the property found upon them.

It was contended, by the counsel for the prisoners, that the proof only amounted to a grand larceny. The store might have been broken open after daylight, &c.; burglary could not be presumed.

Maxwell, contra.

The court decided, that burglary could not be inferred by finding stolen property in the possession of the accused, although larceny may.

The jury found the prisoners guilty of grand larceny.

ty in possession of the accused, although larce

ny may.

This was a case of an arrest of a British seaman, under the 3d section of an act of the state of South Carolina, entitled "An act for the better regulation of Free Negroes and Persons of Color, and for other purposes," passed in December, 1822.

JOHNSON, Justice. The motion submitted by Mr. King, in behalf of the prisoner, is for the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum; and if he should fail in this motion, then for the writ de homine replegiando; the one regarding the prisoner in a criminal, the other in a civil aspect: the first motion having for its object his discharge from confinement absolutely; the other his discharge on bail, with a view to try the question of the validity of the law under which he is held in confinement.

A document in nature of a return, under the hand and seal of the sheriff, has been laid on my table by the gentlemen who conduct the opposition, from which it appears, that the prisoner is in the sheriff's custody, under an act of this state, passed in December last; and, indeed,

August, 1823.

the whole cause has been argued under the admission, CHARLE'N, that he is in confinement under the third section of that act, as he states in his petition.

The act is entitled, "an act for the better regulation of free negroes and persons of color, and for other purposes." And the third section is in these words: "that if any vessel shall come into any port or harbor of this state, from any other state, or foreign port, having on board any free negroes, or persons of color, as cooks, stewards, or mariners, or in any other employment on board of said vessel, such free negroes, or persons of color shall be liable to be seized, and confined in gaol, until such vessel shall clear out and depart from this state and that when said vessel is ready to sail, the captain of said vessel shall be bound to carry away the said free negro, or free person of color, and to pay the expenses of his detention; and in case of his neglect or refusal so to do, he shall be liable to be indicted; and on conviction thereof, shall be fined in a sum not less than one thousand dollars, and imprisoned not less than two months; and such free negroes, or persons of color, shall be deemed and taken as absolute slaves, and sold in conformity to the provisions of the act passed on the 20th December, 1820, aforesaid."

As to the description or character of this individual, it is admitted, that he was taken by the sheriff, under this act, out of the ship Homer, a British ship trading from Liverpool to this place. From the shipping articles it appears that he was shipped in Liverpool; from the captain's affidavit, that he had known him several VOL. II.

8

Elkison

CHARLE'N, years in Liverpool, as a British subject, and from his own
August, 1823.
affidavit, that he is a native subject of Great Britain, born
Elkison in Jamaica.

V.

Deliesseline.

In support of this demand on the protection of the United States, the British consul has also presented his claim of this individual, as a British subject, and with it the copy of a letter from Mr. Adams to Mr. Canning, of June 17th last, written in answer to a remonstrance of Mr. Canning, against this law. Mr. Adams' letter contains these words: "With reference to your letter of the 15th February last, and its enclosure, I have the honor of informing you, that immediately after its reception measures were taken by the government of the United States for effecting the removal of the cause of complaint set forth in it, which it is not doubted have been successful, and will prevent the recurrence of it in future."

This communication is considered by the consul as a pledge, which this court is supposed bound to redeem. It had its origin thus:

Certain seizures under this act were made in January last, some on board of American vessels, and others in British vessels; and among the latter, one very remarkable, for not having left a single man on board the vessel to guard her in the captain's absence.

Applications were immediately made to me in both classes of cases, for the protection of the United States' authority; in consequence of which I called upon the district attorney for his official services. Several reasons concurred to induce me to instruct him to bring the