## Facts

- Tate owned an enslaved man in Burke County, North Carolina.
- A duly appointed slave patrol (O’Neal and others) encountered the enslaved man off Tate’s premises.
- The patrol demanded a pass or permit; none was produced, and the enslaved man gave no answer.
- The patrol conferred, stripped the enslaved man, tied him to a post, and administered 15 lashes.
- Evidence at trial suggested prior hostility between Tate and at least one patrol member.
- Tate sued the patrol members in tort for beating his slave, alleging the punishment was motivated by malice toward Tate rather than enforcement of patrol duties.

## Issues

1. Whether slave patrol members are civilly liable to a slave’s owner for corporal punishment inflicted during patrol duties absent clear proof the punishment was intended to gratify malice against the owner rather than to execute the law.
2. Whether “excessive” punishment alone, without proof of malice toward the owner, permits recovery by the owner.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the verdict for the defendants.
- The Court held patrols are allowed discretion in disciplining enslaved persons encountered without a pass.
- Patrol members are not liable to the owner for punishment imposed in the exercise of that discretion unless their conduct clearly demonstrates malice against the owner.
- The evidence did not require a finding of malice toward Tate sufficient to impose liability.

## Legal Principles

- Slave patrol members acting within their lawful authority are afforded discretion regarding punishment of enslaved persons encountered without proper authorization.
- A slave owner seeking civil recovery for a patrol’s punishment must show conduct clearly indicating the punishment was inflicted to gratify malice against the owner, not merely that it was harsh or mistaken.
- Severity of punishment, standing alone, is insufficient to establish liability absent proof that the patrol acted for an improper purpose directed at the owner.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a rule that shields slave patrol members from civil liability to an owner for disciplinary punishment imposed during patrol enforcement, unless the patrol’s conduct clearly shows the punishment was motivated by malice against the owner rather than execution of patrol authority.


Tate v. O’Neal, 8 N.C. 418 (1821)