_A._ I have read not a few Reports of Cases in Southern Courts; and those reports did more than any thing else to make me an abolitionist. Prosecutions are always brought for the master’s interest—never for the protection or redress of the slave. In Martin’s Louisiana Reports, 1818, you will find the case of Jourdan _vs._ Patten. In this case a lady sued a neighboring proprietor for the damage of putting out the only eye of one of her slaves. The Supreme Court decided that the defendant should pay the lady the sum of twelve hundred dollars; in consideration of which, the slave should be placed in _his_ possession. The lady received all the money, as an indemnification for the loss of property; but the poor slave not only received no atonement for his sufferings, but was actually given to the very man that had knocked his eye out! This is a fair sample of the nature of all such prosecutions. In Nott & McCord’s South Carolina Reports, 1818, it is stated that a slave belonging to Mrs. E. Witsell, was shot through the head by two men who were hunting runaway negroes. The lady commenced an action to recover the value of her slave. The judge told the jury that circumstances _might_ exist to authorize the killing of a negro, _without the sanction of a magistrate, or even the order of a militia officer_; but it was thought such circumstances were not connected with _this_ case; the lady was therefore entitled to compensation for injury done to her property. As for the poor slave himself, his parents, his wife, or his children, they were never once thought of in the matter. _Q._ But do you really believe they hunt negroes with dogs and guns, as some people say?