State v Mann

In the case of State v Mann a slave whose name is Lydia, was escaping the decided punishment of John Mann, a resident of Chowan County, North Carolina. Although there are countless cases similar to this, this one stands out in particular due to its complex story.

John Mann was found Guilty of Assault and Battery by the Chowan County Court, which resulted in him being charged $10 for his crime. We are here today to argue that this fine should be upheld as the technicality of the case is unlike what we have seen in the past. 

John Mann

In other cases, and times, Slave owners had the power and ability to do what they wanted to their slaves. In North Carolina, a slave state, this would be true. Some may believe that John Mann was acting accordingly when in fact he wasn’t. These rules over slaves only apply to those whose slaves belong to them. These rules and regulations will not apply if the slave does not belong to the man punishing them. This is true for this case against John Mann. It is also true for the basic property and protection laws that we already have and because Slaves are considered property the rules would apply in this case as well.

 

You were told that John Mann was a slave owner who was punishing Lydia for her supposed wrongdoing. However, the slave Lydia was not owned by John Mann, rather, Lydia was owned by a woman named Elizabeth Jones. John Mann hired Lydia for work, as was permitted by Elizabeth Jones. Because of this Mann did not own Lydia and therefore could not punish her in a way an owner would punish his or her slave. Some may say that because Lydia was being rented out by Mann, it would give Mann temporary ownership of Lydia, however this would not be the case. 

 

This is no different from a landlord renting out his property to renters. I, as the landlord, own the property that I am renting. The tenants have a right to be there because they are paying me rent, however this does not give them the right to make changes to the property without my, the landlords, permission. The same rules would apply to this case. Because John Mann was not the true owner of Lydia, he did not have permission to punish her in any way without Elizabeth Jones’s prior permission. 

 

In this case the reason behind Mann’s decision of punishment is irrelevant. It does not matter what Lydia did or said to cause John Mann to decide a punishment. The fact of the matter is, Mann did not have the right to “Damage” another person’s property as he did not own said property. This would make him guilty of Assault and battery.

As stated, before John Mann did not own Lydia their fore the rules of property laws could and will apply. We stand by our decision to fine John Mann $10 due to the preexisting laws and regulations of property ownership and the care of.