State v. Mann

 In the case of State v. Mann (1829), Elizabeth Jones rented her slave Lydia to John Mann for about a year. As Lydia fled punishment from Mann, he shot her in the back, and she was wounded. Mann was found guilty of assault and battery in the Chowan County court in North Carolina, where the crime was committed. John Mann brought his case to the North Carolina Supreme Court and won based on “One who has a right to the labor of a slave, has also a right to all the means of controlling his conduct which the owner has (casetext.com).”These words were spoken by Thomas Ruffin of the North Carolina supreme court referring to the decision that because he was renting Lydia and she did not die, he is permitted to treat her as his private property.

(ncpedia.org)

In the county court, Attorney General Daniel ruled that Mann was guilty because the punishment was due to “cruel and unwarrantable, and disproportionate to the offense committed by the slave, that in law the Defendant was guilty, as he had only a special property in the slave (casetext.com).” The judge here took a more ethical approach. Although from a modern-day perspective he is right and his ruling would abide with the current law, slaves were property during this period, and so the question brought about by this case was the treatment of property rather than the treatment of a human being, although Lydia was brutally harmed.

(cwnc.omeka.chass.ncsu.edu)

“The Attorney-General contended that no difference existed between this case and that of the State v. Hall, 2 Hawks, 582. In this case, the weapon used was one calculated to produce death. He assimilated the relation between a master and a slave to those existing between parents and children, masters and apprentices, and tutors and scholars, and upon the limitations to the right of the superiors in these relations (cwnc.omeka.chass.ncsu.edu)...” This shows yet again how he was not approaching the case from a legal standpoint but rather an emotionally logistical standpoint. Because the case was ruled wrongly due to the judge's emotional influence, the case did make its way to the North Carolina Supreme Court. 

(northcarolinahistory.org)

In the Court, Judge Thomas Ruffin (northcarolinahistory.org) leaned the same way towards slavery as Daniel did: "The moral wrong of slavery is . . . admitted, along with the most resolute determination to support it, by not allowing the rights of the master to come under judicial investigation."(ncpedia.org) however, in a rather unsurprising ruling for this period, Mann was ruled as not guilty by the North Carolina Supreme Court. This is because Ruffin followed the laws of property regarding slavery- slaves were property, and since he was trying to control his property, he was not guilty. This best explains his ruling on the case, despite his moral compass: “Hence one who has hired a slave is not liable to an indictment for a battery on him, committed during the hiring (casetext.com).” While he disagreed with it, he fulfilled his duties as justice and made sure the law was carried out as intended. This case is helpful in our understanding of the antebellum period and how slavery was normalized. This also points to a common theme throughout American history of legislation being blatantly against slave's rights, including after their emancipation.

https://casetext.com/case/state-v-mann-129

https://cwnc.omeka.chass.ncsu.edu/items/show/44

https://www.ncpedia.org/state-v-john-mann

https://northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/state-v-mann/