HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr1019 and id is 1 raw text is: versus Matthews,* which is this: That the Court and jury must understand the
record as the rest of mankind do.
This being the rule, and the accusation such as I have before stated, it remains
to be seen only, what the words in the present case are. They are these, That the
defendant, of and concerning the King's Government and the employment of his
troops, said that innocent subjects had been inhumanly murdered by the King's
troops only for preferring death to slavery. Do these words import in their natural
and obvious sense, that the King's troops were employed by the act of Government,
inhumanly to murder the King's innocent subjects ?-There can be no doubt but that
the King's Government comprehends all the executive power of the State both civil
and military. That he employs all the national force, and that his troops are the
instruments with which part of the executive Government is to be carried on. The
introductory part of this information charges, that the subject of the writing in the
present case was, the troops, and the King's troops, and the business they had done.
It has been truly said, that the King's troops may, like other men, act as
individuals: but they can be employed as troops by the act of Government only.
If the averment therefore amounts to this, that, in the discourse which was held, the
words were said of and concerning the King's Government; the natural import
of them, without any forced or strained meaning, appears to us to be this; I am
speaking of the King's administration of his Government relative to his troops, and
I say, that our fellow subjects, faithful to the character of Englishmen, and preferring
death to slavery, were for that reason only inhumanly murdered by the King's order;
or the orders of his officers. The motive imputed tends to aggravate the inhumanity
of the act, and consequently, of the imputation itself : because it arraigns the Govern-
ment of a breach of public trust, in employing the means of the defence of the subject,
in the destruction of the lives of those who are faithful and innocent.
As to any other circumstances not stated in the information; if those which are
stated, do of themselves constitute an offence, the rest supposed by the defendant,
whether true or false, would have been only matter of aggravation, and not any
ingredient essential to the constitution of the crime, and therefore not necessary to be
averred by the record.
[689] Upon the whole of the case, therefore, we are unanimously of opinion, that
the record contains all facts and circumstances necessary to warrant the conclusion
of the jury. And that it likewise contains, all facts and circumstances necessary for
the information of the Court to give their judgment upon the occasion.
Whereupon it was ordered and adjudged, that the judgment, given in the Court of
King's Bench for the King, be affirmed, and the record remitted, &c.
DOE EX Dim. ATKYNS, versus HORDE E'r AL. Friday, Nov. 21st, 1777. Lord
Mansfield was absent, having given his opinion in the year 1757.
In ejeetment for lands in Gloucestershire, upon not guilty pleaded, the jury found
a special verdict stating in substance as follows:
That Sir Robert Atkyns, the Elder, was, on the 8th of June 1699, seised in fee
of the premises in question, and being so seised, on the 12th of June 1699, made and
executed three several indentures: by one of which (called the lesser deed) dated
the 12th of June 1699, made between Sir Edward Atkyns, Sir Robert Atkyns (son
of Sir Edward Atkyns), and Dame Mary his wife, of the one part, and Sir Edward
Carteret and John Lowe Gent. of the other part; it was witnessed that in considera-
tion of Dame Mary releasing a former jointure and of a new provision to be made
for her, Sir Robert covenanted, that he, Sir Edward, and Dame Mary would, before
the end of Michaelmas term then next ensuing, levy a fine of the premises, to the
use of Sir Robert for life, remainder to the use of Dame Mary for life for her jointure,
remainder to Sir Robert Atkyns, son of Sir Robert Atkyns in tail male, remainder
to the right heirs of Sir Robert Atkyns the father for ever.
The other two deeds were a lease and release, dated the 11th and 12th of June
1699, respectively. By the release (called the greater deed) made between Sir E.
Atkyns, Sir R. Atkyns the father, and Dame Mary his wife, Philip Sheppard, Esq;
Sir Clement Farnham, and Edward Atkyns, of the first part; Sir George Carteret,
* State Trials, vol. 9, 710.
1309
2 COW. 689.
DOE V. HORDE](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr1019&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)