State v. Mann (Law)
In the case of State v. Mann, authorities deemed Mann’s response to a slave’s (Lydia) attempt at running to “disproportionate”, “cruel and unwarrantable” and charged Mann with battery and assault. The jury found him guilty in his criminal trial and fined him ten whole dollars. Mann appealed his fine with the argument that the slave-holder as well as the slave-owner were entitled to treat slaves like property since Mann was only renting Lydia at the time. The question I'd like to pose is, "Does renting a slave give you the same rights as owning the a slave?" I think not. As a renter of anything from equipment to homes, it is expected that you return the owner's property as you found it or better. In this case, Lydia, said rented property, would not have been returned in the same condition given that she would have been returned with bullet holes in her back.
Thomas Ruffin, a North Carolina Supreme Court justice at the time, authored the opinion of the court and asserted “full dominion of the owner over the slave” North Carolina History. Ruffin served as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of North Carolina from 1833 until 1852. He is regarded as one of the most important jurists in American history.
In a Supreme Court ruling made six years before Mann, the Supreme Court of North Carolina in State v. Hale upheld battery by a stranger against a slave as an indictable offense. The Hale court employed the following language that Judge Ruffin could have used to conclude the trial in favor of the state of North Carolina in State v. Mann by focusing on the behavior of the perpetrator rather than the identity of the victim. The State v. Hale ruling clearly states, “The common law has often been called into efficient operation for the punishment of public cruelty inflicted upon animals for needless and wanton barbarity exercised even by masters upon their slaves, and for various violations of decency, morals, and comfort. Reason and analogy seem to require that a human being, although the subject of property, should be so far protected as the public might be injured through him” NC Law Review; UNC School of Law. By using this excerpt to prove Mann guilty, the Supreme Court could have taken the first steps towards giving black people equal treatment under the law. Had it been a white person, Mann wouldn't have even thought about appealing his fine and he probably would've been given a larger fine or even jail time but, unfortunately, that was not the case.
What I found quite interesting during my research was the fact that Ruffin was a slave holder himself. Now technically, according to the Judicial Oath that the justices must take, all justices must remain unbiased and impartial. The oath states “I, _________, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God” supremecourt.gov, but was Ruffin "equal and right" to the poor (Lydia) and to the rich (Mann)? That is a tough question to answer personally. I so badly want to believe that he was but I can't help but think that his status as a slave owner could have had something to do with the outcome of Mann's trial. No matter how hard we try, we can never completely block out our personal biases.