General
United States v. Pickering
2 D.C. 1172 Cranch 117·United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia·1816
(Thruston, J., absent,)
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
United States v. Pickering.
An indictment will not lie against a person for dealing with a slave without his master’s consent, the statute having provided a different mode of prosecution.
This was an indictment for dealing with a slave without the consent of his master, contrary to the Act of Virginia of 17th December, 1792, § 16, p. 188.
Mr. E. J. Lee, for the United States.
Mr. Taylor, for the defendant.
[MAJORITY — The Court]
The Court
(Thruston, J., absent,)
decided, upon the authority of the United States v. Jesse Simms, 1 Cranch, 252, that an indictment will not lie; the statute having directed the prosecution to be by action on the case by the master for fourfold the value of the article bought or sold, and a penalty of $20 to be recovered by any person who will sue for the same, &c.