Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 04.pdf/352

The Supreme Court of Kansas.

325

Territory, where, it will be remembered, the was to quash the indictment; and upon that Chief-Justice with his associates were assigned motion the Chief-Justice delivered the follow to preside over three districts respectively. ing opinion : — This case was heard by Chief-Justice Pettit, "There are eleven points of objection taken to at Leavenworth; and the syllabus is as the sufficiency of this indictment, as follows : — follows : — "1. That it does not show that the owners, or "r. The guardian of an infant owner of a slave ' their agent or attorney, duly authorized by in Kentucky cannot pursue the slave into another power of attorney, in writing, acknowledged and State or Territory, to which he has escaped, and certified under the seal of some officer of the court

there arrest him under of the State or Territory the Act of Congress of in which the same may 18th September, 1850 be executed,' made the he not being the person arrest and had the fugi to whom the labor of the tive in custody; or, in fugitive is due by the other words, that to aid laws of Kentucky, nor and assist a fugitive from the agent or attorney of labor in escaping from such person, empowered the arrest and custody in the manner specified of the guardian of the by that act. infant owners, does not "2. The act requires subject a person to in a special mode by which dictment under the said the agent or attorney act of Congress. "2. That if to assist a shall be authorized to fugitive to escape from act, and any other au thority to him is insuffi the custody of such guar cient. The authority dian is within the statute, must be by the act of his appointment, together the person to whom the with the time, place, and service is due. authority by which he "3. If the guardian was appointed, should be had authority, as such, set out or more fully to arrest the fugitive, it stated in the indictment. would be necessary, in '-" 3. That the indict an indictment for the ment does not show that ROBERT CROZ1ER. Rain C. Hutchinson was offence of rescuing the then, that is, at the time fugitive from his custody, after the arrest, to state the time, place, and by of making the arrest and the escape of the fugi what authority the appointment of guardian was tive, such guardian. "4. That it does not show that the fugitive was made. "4. The indictment must distinctly show that the held to service or labor in Kentucky, before his fugitive escaped from the State or Territory where escape therefrom and arrest in Kansas. the service or labor was due by the laws thereof. '.5. That there is not a sufficient seizure and "5. The indictment must also show that the de arrest shown. "6. That it does not show that the fugitive was fendant knew or had notice that the person ar taken forthwith before a court, judge, or commis rested was a fugitive, owing service or labor, etc." sioner, for the purpose of having the case of the The indictment charged one Weld with claimant heard and determined. aiding and abetting one Peter Fisher, a slave, "7. That it does not show in what county, dis to escape from the service of Rain C. Hutch trict, or territory the indictment was found. inson. The motion by defendant's counsel "8. That it does not show that the fugitive es