Goldsborough v. Cradie

Stewart, J., delivered the opinion of this Court. In the refusal of the Court below in this ease, to allow the prayer of the defendant in the first exception, (designated in the record No. 2,) and the third prayer in the second exception, (designated No. 5,) referring to the non-joinder of Pal ⁴⁸⁵ mer as one of the plaintiffs, there is no ,cause of reversal, because in the progress of the case, the defendant had the benefit of the propositions of law, embraced therein by the allowanoe of his seventh prayer in the 4th exception. Baltimore and Ohio R. R. vs. Reiley, 14 Md. Rep., 424 . In the second exception -we concur with the ruling below in the rejection of the prayers of the defendant, Nos. 1 and 2, {designated in the record, Nos. 3 and 4.) It was not necessary that all of the plaintiffs should have been originally concerned in arresting, securing and restoring the negroes .to the owner ; each one may have performed a part in the entire transaction, the whole of which, it was essential, should be proved, but it was not incumbent upon all of them to have acted at the same time.

In order to establish a valid claim for their services, they were required to prove that it was through their agency, the alleged apprehension and returning of the property were secured, but that might have been effected by each performing a part. The right to demand the reward offered, could not be maintained until the negroes were -apprehended and placed in jail, in conformity to the advertisement, or delivered to the owner or his agent, and any person who aided in accomplishing such result, might join in a suit to recover the same. The second prayer in this exception (designated No. 4) is obnoxious to similar objection. If the jury believed that Clymer participated .in the securing and delivery of the negroes, although not in the arrest, he might properly be joined in the action.

We see no ground of reversal in the third-exception. The statement of the negroes were not evidence per se, and could only be introduced, if objected to, where they were a part of the res gestee, but not as distinct and independent testimony, as proposed to be detailed by Bath, the defendant’s witness. No testimony had been previously offered by the plaintiffs, of any declarations of the negroes, made at a time and place, in reference to which the witness, Bath, was required to testify. The testimony of the plaintiffs’ witness, Ratelidge, related to a different time. ⁴⁸⁶ In the fourth exception, the fourth prayer of the defendant, ought to have been granted.

Upon no fair and just princi- ' pie could the reward be claimed, unless at the time of their alleged apprehension, the negroes still continued absconding, and runaways from their owner., If there were no- evidence that the plaintiffs had notice of the reward offered, or that they had bona fide apprehended the negroes, as still absconding and runaways, if such were the fact, what just or legal demand had they to the reward? If the negroes were returning, to their owner, of which the plaintiffs or either of them were apprized, we do not see upon what grounds of law or justice,, or upon any theory of a contract, express or implied, the reward offered could be claimed by the plaintiffs under such