| Ala. | Jan 15, 1848
The plaintiff in error was indicted for selling to a slave “ a certain commodity, to wit: eight gallons of whiskey, without having first obtained the leave or consent of the master, owner or overseer of said slave, either
It is insisted that no conviction can be sustained under this act for selling to a slave, and that as an indictment should pursue the words of the statute on which it is founded, no indictment could be framed for such a charge, that would not be defective. The statute, it is true, would have expressed its meaning with more precision if the preposition “to,” had followed the word “sell.” But “from” cannot be regarded as an adjunct of “sell” — it must be applied to “buy” and “receive” only. Thus adjusting the terms employed, and so far as the present case is concerned, the act may with perfect propriety be thus read, “ every person who shall sell any slave any commodity,” &c. This conclusion is not the result of artificial or technical reasoning; but the reasonable and natural import of the language employed, and does not violate the rule which requres penal statutes to be strictly construed; but is in perfect harmony with it.
It is a mistake to suppose that an indictment should always pursue the very words of the statute, or that an indictment thus framed is, as a matter of course, unexceptionable. See Turnipseed v. The State, 6 Ala. R. 664, in which the law on this point is considered. But it will perhaps follow from what has been already said, that an indictment which follows the act in question will be good; if however, it be otherwise, we have seen that the indictment is sustainable, as the act makes the fact charged an offence.
There is no error in the record, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.