ore severely. If such a group were
brought together by the written permission of the owner and for
business reasons, however, there was involved no offense
whatever.[290] It was realized that oftentimes the chief leaders in
the unlawful meetings of slaves were free Negroes and sympathetic
whites. Were any such to be found present they were to be arrested and
if found guilty when tried before a justice of the peace, should be
fined 15 shillings, to be paid, not to the court, but to the informer
and if the money was not forthcoming the court was to have twenty
lashes inflicted--no matter whether the convicted be white or black.
Inasmuch as the degree of punishment of the slaves for being present
at such a meeting was not specified it would seem that the legislature
meant that the free persons involved should be treated more severely
than slaves by the court.

The law of 1792 regarding trading with slaves had not proved to be
effective, for in many cases the owner for a stipulated wage paid by
the slave had permitted him to go at large and engage in trade as if
he were a free man. The legislature found that this encouraged the
slaves to commit thefts and engage in various evil practices and
naturally censured the owner. A fine of $50 was to be paid by the
master for each offending slave and no punishment whatever was to be
given the latter. But should the servant go so far as to hire himself
out, he would be imprisoned by order of the court and, at the next
session of the county court, he would be sold. One fourth of the money
thus received was to be applied to the county funds and 5 per cent was
to be given to the sheriff and the owner was to receive the remaining
70 per cent. Here too the slave was not punished and his condition of
servitude was not changed. It was merely a change of owners. Again the
offending owner was the victim and for his carelessness he was
deprived of 30 per cent of the money value of his slave.[291]

The leading Kentucky case bearing on slaves engaged in trade is that
of Bryant _vs._ Sheely (5 Dana, 530). Five of the main points are
worth mentioning here:

1. To buy or receive any article from a slave, without the
consent of his master, in writing, specifying the article, is a
highly penal offense.

2. A sale made by a slave, without such written consent, is void,
and does not divest the master of his property; he may sue for,
and recover it; or he may waive his