1784. White V. M'Neily and others. this circumstance principally, the jury were induced to doubt the principles of this defendant while a prisoner at the plaintiff's plantation, and considered him as an aider and abettor of their proceedings there. Graham and Edy were of the party who plundered the plaintiff, and therefore they gave plaintiff a Verdict for 400l. against M'Neily; 2001. against Graham ; and 100%. against Edy. As this was the first case of trespass after the war, in which a jury severed and apportioned damages, it was at first doubted as a deviation from the old common law rule of joint trespassers, who being all equally guilty in the eye of the law, it was supposed jury could not sever. But afterwards, upon mature consideration, the point was given up, as it would be the means of preventing a multiplicity of suits, and at the same time put it in the power of the jury, to apportion at once the quantum of damages, agreeable to the degree of guilt of each trespasser. And it has since been relied on as a precedent. N. B. This case has been relied upon ever since the determination at said town, and the principle of severing damages in joint actions according to the degree of injury committed by each defendant, and his ability to make compensation, has been sanctioned by the judges, as a correct and just one in all similar cases, down to the present day. It may, therefore, be considered as part of the common law of South-Carolina.-See the case of v. Mary Lingard and others, vol. 2. EVANS against HUEY and FRANKLIN. CASE on a note of hand. Duress pleaded. The witnesses proved, that some time previous to the date of this note, Evans and Huey had a quarrel, on which Huey stabbed Evans with a knife in several places; and although none of the wounds proved mortal, yet they disabled Evans for several weeks. That some time after Evans recovered, he went with a party of men armed, in quest of some horse thieves, who were supposed to be in the neighbourhood. That while they were out, they stopped at Huey's house at a late hour of the night, and insisted upon his getting up and opening his doors; which was done, with some relucWhen they got admittance into the house, it was tance. wards, in the night, with an armed party, and proposing a settlement of the difference, ,(though no actual threats were made use of, and a note given in consequence of this proposal, with security) yet this shall dress, both principal and his security. as to the proposed to Huey that he should accommodate the difference with Evans that night, by giving his note for 281. sterling. constitute a A conversation then took place between the parties, and Huey at length agreeing to the proposal, gave his note ac cordingly. Evans and the party staid till morning, when they all went to the house of Franklin, the other defendant, at a mile's distance; who being Huey's neighbour, signed the note, and became his security for the money. This was, therefore, a suit to recover the amount of the note given under these circumstances. Pinckney, for defendant, argued, that this was such a duress as would vitiate the contract. That an armed party going in the dead of night to a man's house, demanding an accommodation of this kind, and especially as Evans was much enraged against him, was sufficient to awaken his fears, and terrify him into any contract; and, therefore, it was not of that free and voluntary nature, as deserved the sanction of a court of justice. Pringle, for plaintiff, contended, that in this case no force was made use of, or threats thrown out to alarm the defendant, Huey. That Evans was free to propose, and the defendant equally so, to assent to or refuse the proposal, as 1784. Evans V. Huey and he thought proper. That he had received an injury by the stabbing, and was certainly entitled to a compensation. If the parties preferred to accommodate their difference in this manner, without the expense of a law-suit, it did not amount to a duress, either for fear of life, imprisonment, or even loss of goods; and, therefore, it was such a contract as deserved the support of the law in its favour. That at all events, even if it could be objectionable as to Huey, it was not so as to Franklin, the other defendant; for he signed it voluntarily in the morning, when he could be under no restraint or apprehension; and as the note was joint and several, the plaintiff was entitled to a recovery against him. PENDLETON, J. charged the jury, that no evidence was before them to prove, that actual threats were made use of: yet, the circumstance of the plaintiff's demanding entrance, and coming into the defendant's house with an armed party, and that, too, not long after he had received an injury from Huey, who must have been aware of the plaintiff's indulging a resentment against him; this circumstance, he said, was sufficient to have awakened any man's apprehensions, who might be placed in a similar situation. He thought, therefore, that any note or bond given, or contract made, when one of the contracting parties must evidently have been under these apprehensions, did not deserve the countenance of a court and jury. As to the liability of the other defendant Franklin, who signed as security for his neighbour Huey, under an idea that the contract was a valid one, if it was void against Huey, it was void against Franklin also. Jury found for defendants. The Administrator of WHITAKER against ENGLISH. TRESPASS for entering the deceased Whitaker's plantation, and taking away sundry negroes, horses, cattle, hogs, corn, &c. late In treasons and trespasses, the highest and lowest offences, there are no acces saries. All are principals ; every of them are liable for and all and the whole ainjury done. mount of the The defini Great Bri The defendant, it seems, was one of those deluded citizens of America, who joined the British army in the war, and accepted a commission in their militia service. In the year 1780, he went, or was sent with a party of men under his command, to the house of the deceased Whitaker, and took away the above articles to a large amount, and tive treaty of carried them off to the British garrison then at Camden. peace with On the trial it was admitted, that he was only a subordinate tuin, only exofficer, and acted by the orders of his superiors in sous from cricommand and further, that no part of the property taken away, was appropriated to his private emolument, but carried to the use of the British army; and, therefore, as he was compelled to do what he did, it was said, it would be unjust to make him responsible. But empts per minal prose cutions for of fences against the state; not from civil ac mages sustained by private individuals. tions for da GRIMKE, J. held, that in treasons and trespasses, the highest and lowest offences, there are no accessaries or subordinate offenders. All are principals ; and wherever men go to do an unlawful act of this kind, all and every of them are liable to the full extent; though where several are sued, a jury may apportion as they think just and proper. (a) It (a) See the is immaterial to what purpose the goods were applied; the v. M'Neily injury to the deceased's estate was the only point for the consideration of the jury. The definitive treaty of peace, in 1783, between Great Britain and this country, was next urged in behalf of the defendant; and it was contended, that the fourth clause of the treaty, which says "There shall be no future confisca"tions or prosecutions, for any thing done during the war," exempted the defendant from responsibility. case of White and others, ante, page 11. But, said the judge, it has been decided over and over again, that the exemption in that article of the treaty only relates to criminal prosecutions at the suit of the state, for treasons, murders, trespasses, misdemeanors, &c. does not exonerate or excuse persons from damages in civil suits, wherever they had injured their neighbour. Verdict for plaintiff, 8001. It Where damages accrue COOKE against RHINE. ASSUMPSIT for work and labour, in rebuilding a by non-per- house. building a Mrs. Rhine, the defendant, having lost her house in one of the destructive fires which raged in Charleston a short a certaintime, time before, or during the late war, applied to the plaintiff, Cook, who was a master-builder, for an estimate of the exlaw, give pense of rebuilding it; as also for an account of the time it a defendant may, under our discount them in evi plaintiff's de and services building, &c. dence against would require before it could be completed; which the plainmand for tiff furnished her with, and an agreement was concluded work, labour, between them accordingly. The plaintiff, however, delayperformed in ed the work much beyond the time proposed, and charged more than the estimate delivered in; for which reason the defendant, by the advice of her friends, refused to pay what she conceived an extravagant bill; and against this bill filed a discount, for the loss of rent she sustained by the plaintiff's unreasonable delay, to the amount of 2201 sterling. See the act of assembly al al debts to be set-off in dis Pringle, for plaintiff, objected to this discount. He arlowing matu gued, that the discount law only extended to liquidated accounts, and not to matters sounding in damages, as in the present case. That if the defendant had sustained a loss by the plaintiff's delay, she had her action, which was her proper remedy. In the present case, she had assessed her own count against each other. |