Mock Trial State V Mann

In 1829 there was a case that concerned a slave and a slave owner named Mr. John Mann ended up shooting the slave because she tried to run away. He did not kill the slave but, he only rented the slave from Elizabeth Jones, who owns the rights of the slave, he was fined 10$ because he was not the direct owner. Mann decides that he wants to fight the ten dollar fine, because he thinks that if he was renting the slave then he is the owner at that time. If he is correct then he would have the rights to shoot her.

The Problem with the court is that they are not allowed to interfere with the slave owners conduct. It states that the slave owner has absolute power over the slave. The court didn't see that the contract transfers ownership over to the leaser who is this case is John Mann. Therefor in the slave conduct laws the owner in this case would be John Mann which gives him full rights to do whatever he wants to the property. North Carolina revised code states that if a slave runs away and is caught, it is lawful for that slave to be killed or destroyed. This means that according to the fugitive slave act John Mann was completely in his rights of shooting her, and he should not have been fined. 

The defense tried to argue against the institution of slavery which in the end hurt their chances of winning the case. They tried to argue the moral reasons on why slavery is bad, and they tried to make arguments about how John Mann was morally wrong. This hurt their chances of winning because this was not a case about slavery and it moral issues, it was a case about slave owner rights and laws. They should have talked more about how John Mann was not the direct owner, and that may have helped their chances of winning the case.