| |
 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Web Editor |
| |
Vernellia R. Randall
Professor of Law
The University of Dayton |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
 |
| |
| 1790
Sct |
Cowperthwaite v. Jones, 2
Dall. 55, 2 U.S. 55, 1 L.Ed. 287 ( Pa.,1790) (Where the jury, in
an action on a bond given on the execution of a writ de homine
replegiando, make the price of the negro slave the measure of
damages, if it is accepted by the master, it will, in equity, and
perhaps in law, operate as a manumission of the slave. A suit on
a bond of sureties for the safe keeping of a negro slave, to
which the slave was a party, has the effect of emancipation |
| 1800
DCT |
Curranee v. McQueen, 6 F.Cas.
984, 2 Paine 109, No. 3488 (C.C.)(2,1800)(C.C. One held in
slavery in a foreign country who becomes free by being brought
into the United States in violation of Act March 2, 1807, 4 Stat.
426, and afterwards remains in the service of his previous owner,
both owner and slave believing that the latter has not obtained
his freedom, cannot recover compensation for such service on an
implied promise, but only on an express promise to pay. |
| 1800
DCT |
U.S. v. Bates, 24 F.Cas. 1042, No.
14,544 (1800)(. The act of congress declaring the slave trade to
be piracy is constitutional.) |
| 1801
DCT |
Rose v. Kennedy, 20 F.Cas. 1188, 1
Cranch C.C. 29, 1 D.C. 29, No. 12,049 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1801)(The
certificate of a justice of the peace of an oath taken by the
owner of a slave who brought the slave into the state of Virginia
may be read to the jury as evidence in itself that the oath
required by Act Va. Dec. 17, 1792, was taken, although the oath
so certified varies from that prescribed.) |
| 1801
DCT |
Sylvia v. Coryell, 23 F.Cas. 591,
1 Cranch C.C. 32, 1 D.C. 32, No. 13,713 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1801)(If
the owner of a slave in Virginia send his slave out of the state
for three years, and bring the slave back, it is not such a
bringing into the commonwealth as entitles the slave to freedom,
under Act Va. Dec. 17, 1792.) |
| 1801
DCT |
U S v. Jack, 26 F.Cas. 555, 1 Cranch
C.C. 44, 1 D.C. 44, No. 15,452 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1801)(The circuit
court of the District of Columbia has no jurisdiction to try a
slave for larceny, but will quash the indictment and send him to
a justice of the peace to be tried. By consent of parties the
court will try the issue, whether slave or not.) |
| 1802
DCT |
U.S. v. Louder, 26 F.Cas. 998, 1
Cranch C.C. 103, 1 D.C. 103, No. 15,630 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1802)(The
circuit court of the District of Columbia has no jurisdiction to
try a slave for larceny, but will quash the indictment and send
him to a justice of the peace to be tried. By consent of parties
the court will try the issue, whether slave or not.) |
| 1803
DCT |
U.S. v. Vickery, 28 F.Cas. 374, 1 H.
& J. 427, No. 16,619 (C.C.Md.,1803)(Where the indictment
under Act May 10, 1800, 2 Stat. 70, charged that the prisoner was
employed in transporting slaves from Martinique to Cumana, and
the evidence produced was that he transported the slaves from
Nevis to Cumana, held, that the indictment, being in the words of
the statute, is sufficient without any averment of the place,
which was unnecessary and mere surplusage, and that proof of the
transportation from Nevis supported the indictment.) |
| 1803
DCT |
|
| 1804
DCT |
Bazil v. Kennedy, 2 F.Cas. 1096, 1
Cranch C.C. 199, 1 D.C. 199, No. 1151 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1804)(On a
devise that a slave should be sold for eight years, after which
he should be free, the term of eight years shall begin to run
from the time of the death of the testator or within a reasonable
time thereafter.) |
| 1804
DCT |
McCall v. Eve, 15 F.Cas. 1232, 1
Cranch C.C. 188, 1 D.C. 188, No. 8670 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1804)(A
master of a vessel is not liable to the penalty under the
Virginia statute (Jan. 25, 1798, §§ 6, 7), for carrying a slave
out of the state, unless he did it knowingly.) |
| 1805
DCT |
Lee v. Lacey, 15 F.Cas. 209, 1 Cranch
C.C. 263, 1 D.C. 263, No. 8193 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1805)(A master of a
vessel is not liable to the penalty under the Virginia statute
(Jan. 25, 1798, §§ 6, 7), for carrying a slave out of the
state, unless he did it knowingly.) |
| 1805
DCT |
Loudon v. Scott, 15 F.Cas. 940, (C.C.Dist.Col.,1805)(A
slave brought into Alexandria, Va., in 1802, by a person removing
from Maryland and omitting to take the oath within 60 days after
his removal, is entitled to freedom under the act of December 17,
1792, although the person bringing the slave was not his owner.) |
| 1805
Sct |
|
| 1805
DCT |
U.S. v. Fisher, 25 F.Cas. 1086, 1
Cranch C.C. 244, 1 D.C. 244, No. 15,101 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1805)(General
reputation of freedom is sufficient to rebut the presumption of
slavery arising from color.) |
| 1806
DCT |
Ben v. Scott, 3 F.Cas. 154, 1
Cranch C.C. 350, 1 D.C. 350, No. 1286 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1806)(Upon a
petition for freedom the court will not require the defendant to
give security for the wages of the petitioner during the
litigation. An affidavit is not necessary to continue a petition
for freedom at the first term.) |
| 1806
DCT |
Burr v. Dunnahoo, 4 F.Cas. 806, 1
Cranch C.C. 370, 1 D.C. 370, No. 2189 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1806)(A
slave, coming from Virginia into Maryland more than a year after
his master, and sold, is entitled to freedom under Acts Md.1796,
c. 67.) |
| 1806
DCT |
Ex parte Anthony, 1 F.Cas. 1045, 1
Cranch C.C. 295, 1 D.C. 295, No. 485 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1806)(A
justice of the peace in Alexandria cannot commit a person as a
runaway, unless according to the form of Act Va. Dec. 26, 1792,
p. 246.) |
| 1806
DCT |
Ex parte Letty, 15 F.Cas. 411, 1
Cranch C.C. 328, 1 D.C. 328, No. 8284 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1806)(A
petitioner for freedom, in custody, will not be discharged on the
request of the master, unless on security given by him to have
the petitioner forth- coming, etc., to prosecute the claim for
freedom.) |
| 1806
DCT |
Foster v. Simmons, 9 F.Cas. 579, 1
Cranch C.C. 316, 1 D.C. 316, No. 4983 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1806)(An
importation of a slave from the county of Alexandria into the
county of Washington is an importation into the state of
Maryland, within the meaning of Act Md.1796, c. 67, as adopted by
congress by Act Feb. 27, 1801 (2 Stat. 103).) |
| 1806
DCT |
Harrison v. Evans, 11 F.Cas. 648,
1 Cranch C.C. 364, 1 D.C. 364, No. 6135 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1806)(In
an action upon the case against the owner of a stagecoach for
taking away the plaintiff's slave, evidence may be given on the
part of the defendant that the plaintiff had given the slave a
written permission to seek a new master, and, if such permission
be without limitation of time or place, the plaintiff cannot
recover.) |
| 1806
DCT |
Minchin v. Docker, 17 F.Cas. 437,
1 Cranch C.C. 370, 1 D.C. 370, No. 9628 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1806)(Evidence
that a black man has, for many years, publicly acted as a free
man, and been generally reputed to be free, rebuts the
presumption of slavery arising from color, and is evidence that
he was born of a white woman.) |
| 180 |
Moses v. Dunnaho, 17 F.Cas. 892, 1
Cranch C.C. 315, 1 D.C. 315, No. 9873 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1806)(A
petitioner for freedom has not a right to go in search of his
witnesses.) |
| 1806 |
Scott v. Negro London, 3
Cranch 324, 7 U.S. 324, 2 L.Ed. 455 (U.S.Dist.Col.,1806)(A slave
was brought into Virginia by a person who claimed and exercised
the right of ownership over him, though he did not take the oath
prescribed by the law. Eleven months after, the real owner of the
slave came into the state, and within the 60 days took the oath
prescribed. Held, that the slave was not entitled to his freedom) |
| 1806 |
Tryphenia v. Harrison, 24
F.Cas. 252, 1 Wash.C.C. 522, No. 14,209 (C.C.Pa.,1806)(Act March
22, 1794, 46 U.S.C.A. § 1351 et seq., which prohibits any
citizen or resident of the United States from equipping vessels
within the United States to carry on trade or traffic in slaves
to any foreign country, and Act May 10, 1800, 46 U.S.C.A. § 1353
et seq., which extends the prohibitions to citizens of the United
States in any manner concerned in this kind of traffic, were not
intended to apply to cases where slaves are carried from one
foreign port to another as passengers and not for sale.) |
| 1806 |
U.S. v. Butler, 25 F.Cas. 212, 1
Cranch C.C. 373, 1 D.C. 373, No. 14,697 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1806)(Assault
and battery of a slave is an indictable offense.) |
| 1807 |
Ben v. Scott, 3 F.Cas. 155, 1
Cranch C.C. 407, 1 D.C. 407, No. 1288 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1807)(Under
Laws Md. April, 1783, c. 23, the slave imported gains his freedom
by the omission of the master to prove, to the satisfaction of
the naval officer or collector of taxes, that the slave had
resided in one of the United States three years before
importation. The general issue on a petition for freedom is that
which puts in issue the simple question whether free or not.) |
| 1807
DCT |
Crease v. Parker, 6 F.Cas. 791, 1
Cranch C.C. 448, 1 D.C. 448, No. 3376 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1807)(A
promise by a slave to repay money advanced to him to enable him
to purchase his freedom is not binding, and it cannot be
enforced, though the slave acknowledges his liability after
emancipation.) |
| 1807
DCT |
Ex parte Amy, 1 F.Cas. 799, 1 Cranch
C.C. 392, 1 D.C. 392, No. 340 (6k21)(C.C.Dist.Col.,1807)(Where a
slave sued for freedom and was defeated, and the owner did not
give the security required by law, it was held that he must pay
the prison fees for the commitment and safe custody of the slave
pending the suit in the county of Alexandria.) |
| 1807
DCT |
Fidelio v. Dermott, 8 F.Cas.
1175, 1 Cranch C.C. 405, 1 D.C. 405, No. 4754 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1807)(A
manumission by will is not in prejudice of creditors if the real
and personal estate are sufficient, without the value of the
manumitted slave, to pay all the debts of the testator. The sale
of a slave on the express condition that he should be free at the
end of six years is not a manumission under Acts Md.1796, c. 67.) |
| 1807
DCT |
Lee v. Ramsay, 15 F.Cas. 224, 1 Cranch
C.C. 435, 1 D.C. 435, No. 8200 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1807)(A parol gift
of a slave in Virginia in 1784 was void under the statute of
1758, although possession accompanied and followed the gift, and
it was not made valid by the act of 1787. A deed of gift of a
slave in Virginia was void under the acts of 1758 and 1787,
unless possession accompanied and followed the deed. A legacy of
a slave gives no title till assented to by the executor.) |
| 1807
DCT |
Lucy v. Slade, 15 F.Cas. 1091, 1
Cranch C.C. 422, 1 D.C. 422, No. 8595 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1807)(Under
Act Va. Dec. 17, 1792, which entitles a slave to freedom where
his owner does not take a specified oath after the removal of the
slave to the state of Virginia, such oath must be taken within 60
days after the removal of the slave.) |
| 1808
DCT |
Davis v. Baltzer, 7 F.Cas. 111, 1
Cranch C.C. 482, 1 D.C. 482, No. 3625 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1808)(The
list of slaves brought into the state of Maryland, required by
Acts Md.1796, c. 67, must be delivered to the clerk of the county
into which the slaves are first brought, and within three months
thereafter.) |
| 1808
DCT |
Nan v. Moxley, 17 F.Cas. 1147, 1
Cranch C.C. 523, 1 D.C. 523, No. 10,007 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1808)(The
affidavit of a manumitted negro is sufficient ground for an order
to issue a summons returnable immediately on a petition for
freedom.) |
| 1808 |
Ramsay v. Lee, 4 Cranch 401, 8 U.S.
401, 2 L.Ed. 660( U.S.Dist.Col.,1808)(In Virginia, in 1784, no
gift of a slave was valid unless in writing and recorded,
although possession accompanied the gift.) |
| 1808 |
Spiers v. Willison, 4 Cranch 398,
8 U.S. 398, 2 L.Ed. 659(U.S.Ky.,1808)(By the Virginia act of
assembly, no gift of a slave was valid unless in writing and
recorded; but parol evidence may be given of the existence of a
deed of gift to show the nature of possession which accompanied
the deed.) |
| 1809
DCT |
U.S. v. Smith, 27 F.Cas. 1158, 4 Day
121, Brunn.Coll.C. 82, No. 16,332 (C.C.Conn.,1809)(Under Act May
10, 1800, 2 Stat. 70, the offense consists in transporting
persons from one foreign country to another with a view to their
being sold as slaves; and as soon as the vessel arrives at the
place of destination, the offense is completed, whether the
slaves are sold or not.) |
| 1810
Sct |
|
| 1810
DCT |
Thomas v. Scott, 23 F.Cas. 970, 2
Cranch C.C. 2, 2 D.C. 2, No. 13,910 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1810)(Upon a
petition for freedom, the defendant may appear and disclaim,
without entering into the usual recognizance.) |
| 1811
DCT |
Bell v. Hogan, 3 F.Cas. 107, 2 Cranch
C.C. 21, 2 D.C. 21, No. 1253 (6k3)(C.C.Dist.Col.,1811)(If a
colored man was born a slave, his being permitted to go at large
without restraint, and to act as a freeman, is no evidence of his
being free. If plaintiff's freedom was not so notorious that
defendant might be presumed to know it, defendant is not liable
to damages for taking up plaintiff as a runaway; he being a
colored man and, prima facie, a slave.) |
| 1812
DCT |
Preston v. McGaughey, 19 F.Cas.
1294, Brunn.Coll.C. 174, 3 Tenn. 113, Cooke 113, No. 11,397 (The
issue of a female slave, during a)(particular, or life estate,
belongs to the person in remainder.) |
| 1813
DCT |
Park v. Willis, 18 F.Cas. 1109, 2
Cranch C.C. 83, 2 D.C. 83, No. 10,717 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1813)(Under
Act Va. Jan. 25, 1798, §§ 6, 7, a master of a vessel is liable
to the owner of a slave for his loss, if he takes the slave out
of the county of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia, without
a written authority from his owner, or a compliance with the
other requisites of that act; and a general hiring to the
defendant for 11 months, without any limitation as to the nature
or place of his employment, is not such a permission as the act
requires, although the plaintiff knew that the defendant's
occupation was that of a master of a vessel, and the slave was a
seaman. The person to whom the slave is hired is not the owner
within the meaning of the statute.) |
| 1813
DCT |
U S v. Bruce, 24 F.Cas. 1279, 2 Cranch
C.C. 95, 2 D.C. 95, No. 14,676 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1813)(An informal
instrument of manumission, accompanied by an actual manumission
of the defendant before the commission of the offense charged,
followed by a formal deed of manumission after the commission of
the offense, is sufficient evidence that the defendant was not a
slave at the time of committing the offense.) |
| 1814
DCT |
Almeida v. Certain Slaves,
1 F.Cas. 538, 5 Hall L.J. 459, 5 Hughes 55, 3 Wheeler C.C. 538,
No. 255 (D.C.S.C.,1814)(During the War of 1812 a United States
privateer captured slaves on an English ship. Held, that, in
consideration of the law prohibiting the importation of slaves,
they could not be deemed prize, and that the court should not
assume the responsibility of declaring them prisoners of war, but
that the question of their disposition should be left to the
government, to be treated as a matter of state policy.) |
| 1814
DCT |
Emanuel v. Ball, 8 F.Cas. 611, 2
Cranch C.C. 101, 2 D.C. 101, No. 4433 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1814)(If a
slave escape from his master in Virginia, and be found in
Washington, and there sold by his master, the slave does not
thereby acquire a right to freedom, under Acts Md.1796, c. 67.) |
| 1814
DCT |
Garey v. Johnson, 10 F.Cas. 1, 2
Cranch C.C. 107, 2 D.C. 107, No. 5240 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1814)(Trespass
vi et armis will lie for the master against one who beats his
slave, though there should be no loss of service.) |
| 1814
DCT |
Simmons v. Gird, 22 F.Cas. 157, 2
Cranch C.C. 100, 2 D.C. 100, No. 12,867 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1814)(The
time of a slave's sailing on a voyage from Alexandria, D. C., is
not to be considered as a part of his year's residence, so as to
entitle him to freedom, under Act Va. Dec. 17, 1792, § 2.) |
| 1814
DCT |
Violette v. Ball, 28 F.Cas. 1218, 2
Cranch C.C. 102, 2 D.C. 102, No. 16,954 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1814)(A
slave does not acquire a right to freedom by being sent from
Washington to Virginia for sale, and, not being sold, brought
back after eight or nine months' absence.) |
| 1815
DCT |
Fales v. Mayberry, 8 F.Cas. 970, 2
Gall. 560, No. 4622 (C.C.R.I.,1815)(No action can be maintained
between parties engaged in the slave trade on any right or
property growing out of their transactions therein. No action can
therefore be maintained by a part owner of a ship engaged in the
slave trade, against his co-owner or an agent who is a party to
the original illegal traffic, for an accounting as to the profits
of such a voyage on such trade.) |
| 1815
DCT |
U S v. Tom, 28 F.Cas. 200, 2 Cranch C.C.
114, 2 D.C. 114, No. 16,531 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1815)(A slave
convicted of manslaughter in Alexandria, D. C., may be punished
by burning in the hand and whipping.) |
| 1816
Sct |
|
| 1816
DCT |
U.S. v. Pickering, 27 F.Cas. 528,
2 Cranch C.C. 117, 2 D.C. 117, No. 16,042 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1816)(An
indictment will not lie under Act Va. Dec. 17, 1792, which
provides that, where a person deals with a slave without the
master's consent, the prosecution shall be by action on the case
by the master for fourfold the value of the article bought or
sold, and that a penalty of $20 may be recovered by any person
who will sue for the same.) |
| 1817
DCT |
Betty v. Deneale, 3 F.Cas. 319, 2
Cranch C.C. 156, 2 D.C. 156, No. 1375 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1818)(A deed
of manumission, when acknowledged and recorded, relates to the
time of its execution.) |
| 1817
Sct |
|
| 1817
DCT |
Thompson v. Clarke, 23 F.Cas.
1032, 2 Cranch C.C. 145, 2 D.C. 145, No. 13,951 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1817)(If
a testator by his will manumits his slaves after a certain term
of service, and the widow renounces the provision made for her by
the will, and adheres to her rights under the law and there is
sufficient personal estate to satisfy her thirds without
resorting to the slaves, they will be entitled to their freedom,
though the executor shall have assigned them to the widow in part
satisfaction of her claim.) |
| 1818
DCT |
Bias v. Rose, 3 F.Cas. 328, 2 Cranch
C.C. 159, 2 D.C. 159, No. 1382 (t.Col.,1818)(Under Act Md.1796,
§ 3, with regard to the importation of slaves, a slave brought
into the county of Washington, D. C., from Maryland, by his
owner, and within three years thereafter mortgaged for his full
value, does not thereby acquire a right to his freedom.) |
| 1818
DCT |
Contee v. Garner, 6 F.Cas. 361, 2
Cranch C.C. 162, 2 D.C. 162, No. 3139 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1818)(A
slave cannot bind himself at law to pay money to his master, even
for his freedom.) |
| 1818
DCT |
In re Susan, 23 F.Cas. 444, 2 Wheeler
C.C. 594, No. 13,632 (C.C.Ind.,1818)(Act Feb. 12, 1793, 1 Stat.
302, providing a procedure for the reclaiming of a fugitive slave
escaping into another state, is valid, and the remedy thereunder
supersedes the remedy given by state laws.) |
| 1818
DCT |
Love v. Boyd, 15 F.Cas. 992, 2 Cranch
C.C. 156, 2 D.C. 156, No. 8546 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1818)(In Virginia a
person who has been in possession of a slave for five years need
not show the deed under which he claims title.) |
| 1818
DCT |
Sarah v. Taylor, 21 F.Cas. 431, 2
Cranch C.C. 155, 2 D.C. 155, No. 12,339 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1818)(If a
female slave be sold, to serve the vendee for a term of years,
with an obligation by the vendee to manumit her at the expiration
of the term, and if, during the term, she has issue, such issue
is entitled to freedom.) |
| 1818
DCT |
U.S. v. Godley, 25 F.Cas. 1341, 2
Cranch C.C. 153, 2 D.C. 153, No. 15,221 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1818)(In
Virginia, no indictment lies at common law for stealing a slave.) |
| 1818
DCT |
Washington v. Wilson, 29 F.Cas.
359, 2 Cranch C.C. 153, 2 D.C. 153, No. 17,240 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1818)(An
action on the case will lie for the loss of plaintiff's slave,
though defendant wrongfully and unlawfully acquired and kept
possession of the slave. In an action upon the statute of
Virginia for carrying away the plaintiff's slave, evidence will
not be permitted to be given that the slave had hired himself as
a free man to another master of a vessel in a previous voyage.) |
| 1819
DCT |
Esam v. Green, 21 F.Cas. 284, Cranch
C.C. 165, 2 D.C. 165, No. 12,275 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1819)(A slave
does not acquire freedom by an importation and continuance a year
in Alexandria, D. C., unless he continue there one year under the
same master or owner.) |
| 1819
DCT |
The Caroline, 5 F.Cas. 90, 1 Brock 384,
No. 2418 (C.C.Va.,1819)(An act of congress declares that "no
person shall build, fit, equip, load, or otherwise prepare, any
ship or vessel, etc., within any port of the United States, nor
shall cause any ship or vessel to sail from any port of the
United States for the purpose of carrying on any trade or traffic
in slaves to any foreign country"; and it declares that
"if any ship or vessel shall be so fitted out as aforesaid,
or shall be caused to sail as aforesaid, such ship or vessel,
etc., shall be forfeited to the United States," and section
2 inflicts a penalty of $2,000 on any person who shall build, fit
out, etc., any such ship or vessel, knowing or intending that the
same shall be so employed. Held, that the forfeiture of the
vessel is not incurred by the building of the vessel for the
illegal purpose aforesaid, but only for the fitting out or
causing her to sail as aforesaid. An information against the
vessel, which charges "that she was built, fitted, equipped,
loaded, or otherwise prepared, etc., or caused to sail," for
the purpose of carrying on traffic in slaves, etc., is bad for
the uncertainty as to which of the several offenses is charged;
and on such information a sentence of forfeiture ought not to be
pronounced.) |
| 1820
DCT |
Reeler v. Robinson, 20 F.Cas.
455, 2 Cranch C.C. 220, 2 D.C. 220, No. 11,655 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1820)(After
the lapse of 24 years, it will not be presumed, on a petition for
freedom, that the oath, required by the law of Virginia, was
taken by the person who brought the petitioner into such state
when the latter was six years of age.) |
| 1820
Sct |
|
| 1820
DCT |
The Wilson, 30 F.Cas. 239, 1 Brock 423,
No. 17,846 (C.C.Va.,1820)(Act Feb. 28, 1803, 2 Stat. 205,
forbidding any master or captain of a ship or vessel to
"import" or "bring" into any port of the
United States any negro, mulatto, or other person of color, under
certain penalties, where the admission or importation of such
persons is prohibited by the laws of such state, does not apply
to colored seamen employed in navigating such ship or vessel.) |
| 1820
DCT |
U S v. Andrews, 24 F.Cas. 815, 5 City
H. Rec. 120, Brunn.Coll.C. 422, No. 14,454 (C.C.N.Y.,1820)(It is
sufficient on an indictment for engaging in slave trade to prove
that the accused were engaged in procuring slaves, and sending
them on by another vessel; it is not necessary that the vessel to
which they belong should actually have had slaves on board.) |
| 1820
DCT |
U S v. Malebran, 26 F.Cas. 1145, 5
City H. Rec. 122, Brunn.Coll.C. 426, No. 15,711 (C.C.N.Y.,1820)(It
is an indictable offense, under Act 1818, 3 Stat. 450, to fit,
equip, load, or otherwise prepare a vessel in the United States
for the purpose of transporting slaves from a foreign place to
any other place.) |
| 1821
DCT |
Dunbar v. Ball, 7 F.Cas. 1185, 2
Cranch C.C. 261, 2 D.C. 261, No. 4128 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1821)(If a
citizen of the United States, owning a slave in Virginia, and
residing there, removes to the county of Washington, in the
District of Columbia, with a bona fide intention of settling
therein, and afterwards causes the said slave to be brought into
said county, through the county of Alexandria, within one year
after such removal, and if the owner, within three years after
such removal, sell the said slave, the slave thereby becomes
entitled to freedom, notwithstanding Acts May 3, 1802, § 7 (2
Stat. 194), and June 24, 1812, § 9 (2 Stat. 757); the said slave
having been in Alexandria county merely in transitu.) |
| 1821
DCT |
Garretson v. Lingan, 10 F.Cas.
46, 2 Cranch C.C. 236, 2 D.C. 236, No. 5251 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1821)(Length
of time does not raise a presumption against a slave that his
owner took the oath required by Act Va. Dec. 17, 1792, under
which a slave is entitled to his freedom, unless the owner takes
a certain oath within 60 days after the removal of the slave to
the state of Virginia.) |
| 1821
DCT |
The Francis F. Johnson, 25
F.Cas. 1200, 20 Niles Reg. 137, No. 15157A (D.C.S.C.,1821)(U.S.D.C.
1821. A vessel which cleared from Alexandria for New Orleans with
a cargo of slaves, and which had on board two slaves engaged at
the time of seizure, and long prior to shipping the cargo, in
performing duty as members of the crew, but not rated as members
thereof in the ship's articles or logbook, held not subject to
forfeiture under the statute relating to the slave trade, 2 St.
at Large, p. 426, because the said two slaves were not entered in
the manifest as part of the cargo.) |
| 1821
CirCt |
U S v. Kennedy, 26 F.Cas. 762, 4
Wash.C.C. 91, No. 15,525 (C.C.Pa.,1821)(The master of a vessel
"serves" on board the vessel, and may be punished under
Act May 10, 1800, 2 Stat. 70, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1586 et seq., which
provides that "it shall be unlawful for any citizen of the
United States, or other person residing therein, to serve on
board any vessel of the United States employed or made use of in
the transportation or carrying of slaves from one foreign country
or place to another." Act May 10, 1800, 2 Stat. 70, 18
U.S.C.A. § 1586 et seq., which provides that it shall be
unlawful for any citizen of the United States to serve on a
vessel employed or made use of "in the transportation or
carrying of slaves from one foreign country or place to
another," prohibits citizens of the United States from
engaging in a traffic in slaves between one foreign country and
another, but the act does not apply to a case of mere
transportation) |
| 1821
DCT |
U S v. Pompey, 27 F.Cas. 590, 2 Cranch
C.C. 246, 2 D.C. 246, No. 16,066 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1821)(On the
trial of an indictment at common law for enticing away a slave,
the verdict was "Guilty," and the jury assessed the
fine at $50. Held that, though the court was in doubt as to
whether such an indictment would lie at common law, judgment
would be entered up for the fine as assessed by the jury; no
motion in arrest of judgment having been made.) |
| 1822
DCT |
Brown v. Wingard, 4 F.Cas. 438, 2
Cranch C.C. 300, 2 D.C. 300, No. 2034 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1822)(An
executory contract between a master and his slave cannot be
enforced either at law or in equity, and therefore a verbal
agreement to give a slave his freedom on the payment of a certain
amount cannot be enforced, though the master has already accepted
most of the consideration.) |
| 1822
DCT |
Daniel v. Kincheloe, 6 F.Cas.
1150, 2 Cranch C.C. 295, 2 D.C. 295, No. 3561 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1822)(If
the importation of a slave into the county of Washington, D. C.,
be with intent that he should be hired out for a limited time
only, it is not such an importation as is forbidden by Acts
Md.1796, c. 67, § 1.) |
| 1822
CirCt |
|
| 1822
DCT |
Matilda v. Mason &
Moore, 16 F.Cas. 1106, 2 Cranch C.C. 343, 2 D.C. 343, No. 9280 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1822)(A
person relying upon the proviso in the Virginia law in favor of
persons coming to reside in Virginia, and bringing their slaves
with them and taking a certain oath, must produce competent
testimony to prove that the terms and conditions of the proviso
had been complied with, and in the absence of all testimony no
presumption can arise, from lapse of time, to supply the defect
of the testimony.) |
| 1822
DCT |
Scott v. Bartleman, 21 F.Cas.
813, 2 Cranch C.C. 313, 2 D.C. 313, No. 12,524 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1822)(Where
a slave is hired for a year, and he is arrested for theft during
the year, and imprisoned therefor during the residue of the term
for which he was hired, the one who hired the slave must pay the
stipulated price for the whole term and suffer the loss of
service.) |
| 1823
DCT |
Amelia v. Caldwell, 1 F.Cas. 596,
2 Cranch C.C. 418, 2 D.C. 418, No. 278 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1823)(A
slave carried from Washington, in the District of Columbia, to
Virginia, by her owner, for a temporary residence only, and
brought back to Washington, and there sold to a resident of
Washington, does not thereby become entitled to freedom under
Acts Md.1796, c. 67, which prohibits the importation of slaves
for sale or to reside, and provides that it may be lawful for any
citizen "who shall come into this state with a bona fide
intention of settling therein to import or bring into this state
any slave or slaves the property of such citizen at the time of
his or her said removal.") |
| 1823
CirCt |
Ex parte Simmons, 22 F.Cas. 151, 4
Wash.C.C. 396, No. 12,863 n(C.C.E.D.Pa.,1823)(The act of
congress, respecting fugitives owing service and labor, does not
apply to slaves brought by their masters from one state to
another, who afterwards escape or refuse to return. By Act Pa.
March 1, 1780, a slave, brought to Pennsylvania from a foreign
state and residing there more than six months, becomes free.) |
| 1823
DCT |
Fanny v. Kell, 8 F.Cas. 995, 2 Cranch
C.C. 412, 2 D.C. 412, No. 4639 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1823)(Children born
of a slave mother, entitled to or promised her freedom at the end
of a fixed period, are born slaves, and so continue even after
the mother obtains her freedom. There can be no binding contract
between a slave and his master.) |
| 1823
DCT |
Gardner v. Simpson, 9 F.Cas.
1202, 2 Cranch C.C. 405, 2 D.C. 405, No. 5237 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1823)(A
Virginian slave is not entitled to freedom, under Acts Md.1796,
c. 67, by being hired to a resident of the county of Washington
for a limited period.) |
| 1823
DCT |
Jordan v. Sawyer, 13 F.Cas. 1101, 2
Cranch C.C. 373, 2 D.C. 373, No. 7521 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1823)(Acts
Md.1796, c. 67, concerning the importation of slaves, is in force
in the county of Washington, D. C., although in terms it is
applicable only to the state of Maryland. A slave imported into
the county of Washington, D. C., for sale, and sold within three
years after such importation, is entitled to freedom, although
the object and intention of both purchaser and seller were that
the slave so purchased should be carried, forthwith, out of the
District of Columbia, by the purchaser. To obtain freedom under
Acts Md.1796, c. 67, the slave must have been imported "for
sale" or "to reside.") |
| 1823
DCT |
Smallwood v. Worthington,
22 F.Cas. 367, 2 Cranch C.C. 431, 2 D.C. 431, No. 12,963 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1823)(A
count averring that the defendant promised that a servant, whose
time the plaintiff had bought of the defendant, had three years
to serve; and that the defendant, not regarding his said promise,
but contriving and fraudulently intending to injure the
plaintiff, craftily and subtilely deceived the plaintiff in this,
that the servant had not three years to serve, is not a count
founded upon fraud, but upon the breach of the promise.) |
| 1823
Sct |
The Mary Ann, 21 U.S. 380, 5 L.Ed. 641,
8 Wheat. 380 (U.S.La.,1823)(In libel for forfeiture of a vessel
under statute relating to importation of slaves, where statute
inflicted a pecuniary penalty in case of vessel under 40 tons
burden, and prescribed forfeiture of vessels of burden of 40 tons
or more, libel should have alleged that vessel was of the burden
of 40 tons or more, in accordance with the facts. Act March 2,
1807, c. 22, §§ 8, 9, 10, 2 Stat. 429. Statute requiring
captain of any vessel of the burden of 40 tons or more, sailing
coastwise, and having on board any negro, to make out and deliver
duplicate manifests and requiring forfeiture of any ship
departing without manifests having been executed comprehends
forfeiture only of vessels of 40 tons or more. The allegation in
libel for forfeiture of vessel under statute prohibiting
importation of slaves, that manifests required by law were not
made out was sufficient on demurrer. A libel for forfeiture of a
vessel which allegedly sailed from port of New York and Perth
Amboy without delivering manifests to collectors or surveyors of
ports of New York and Perth Amboy was defective in view of fact
that law requires delivery of manifest to collector or surveyor
of one port only or was defective for vagueness in not alleging
with precision the port where offense was committed. Act March 2,
1807, c. 22, 2 Stat. 426.) |
| 1823
DCT |
U S v. Ellick, 25 F.Cas. 999, 2 Cranch
C.C. 412, 2 D.C. 412, No. 15,042 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1823)(The circuit
court of the District of Columbia has no jurisdiction in assault
and battery by a slave on a white man, and will order him to be
taken before a justice of the peace, to be dealt with according
to law.) |
| 1823
DCT |
U.S. v. Brockett, 24 F.Cas. 1241, 2
Cranch C.C. 441, 2 D.C. 441, No. 14,651 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1823)(To
cruelly, inhumanly, and maliciously cut, slash, beat, and
illtreat one's own slave, is an indictable offense at common
law.) |
| 1824
DCT |
Rebecca v. Pumphrey, 20 F.Cas.
384, 2 Cranch C.C. 514, 2 D.C. 514, No. 11,620 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1824)(On
a petition for freedom, suggesting an apprehension that the
defendant will sell and remove the petitioners from the
jurisdiction of the court, supported by affidavit, a judge of the
circuit court of the District of Columbia, in vacation, will
order an injunction without security; and, upon further affidavit
that the defendant had attempted to carry the petitioners away
after notice of the filing of their petition, the judge will
order the marshal to take them into his custody for safe-keeping
until the defendant shall give the security required by law for
their forthcoming to prosecute their petition; and if the
defendant shall refuse to give such security, and if judgment
shall be rendered againt him, the marshal's fees for keeping them
shall be taxed in the bill of costs against the defendant.) |
| 1824
DCT |
Tarlton v. Tippett, 23 F.Cas.
702, 2 Cranch C.C. 463, 2 D.C. 463, No. 13,754 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1824)(If
the owner of a slave in the county of Washington carries her to a
foreign country with intent there to reside permanently, and does
there reside with her for more than 12 months and is then
compelled to quit that country and returns to the county of
Washington, bringing the slave with him there to reside, the
slave, by such importation, becomes entitled to her freedom. If,
however, the owner of a slave is sent to a foreign country as a
special agent of the government of the United States, at a stated
salary, with an uncertainty, depending on contingencies, whether
he should remain there or return after accomplishing the purpose
of his mission, and is compelled to leave the country before he
had actually settled himself as a permanent resident there, then
the taking a slave with him and bringing her back is not an
importation which will entitle her to freedom, under Acts
Md.1796, c. 67.) |
| 1824
Sct |
|
| 1824
Sct |
|
| 1824
CirCt |
Worthington v. Preston, 30
F.Cas. 645, 4 Wash.C.C. 461, No. 18,055 (C.C.E.D.Pa.,1824)(Under
the fugitive slave law of February 12, 1793, 1 Stat. 302, the
judge or magistrate has no power to issue a warrant to arrest the
fugitive, or to commit after the examination is over and the
certificate is granted, and such a warrant is wholly invalid for
any purpose. |
| 1825
DCT |
Letty v. Lowe, 15 F.Cas. 411, 2 Cranch
C.C. 634, 2 D.C. 634, No. 8285 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1825)(A slave,
purchased by defendant, at her request, to enable her to obtain
her freedom on repayment of the purchase money, must repay the
whole amount before being entitled to her freedom.) |
| 1825
DCT |
Peter v. Cureton, 19 F.Cas. 312, 2
Cranch C.C. 561, 2 D.C. 561, No. 11,019 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1825)(Quaere,
whether children of a female slave born while the mother was in
the temporary service of a vendee for years are slaves of the
vendor or vendee.) |
| 1825
DCT |
Semmes v. Sherburne, 21 F.Cas.
1059, 2 Cranch C.C. 637, 2 D.C. 637, No. 12,656 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1825)(If
the plaintiff's slave be hired to the defendant in the District
of Columbia, who carries her to New Hampshire without the consent
or authority of the plaintiff, by means whereof she is lost to
the plaintiff, he may, in trover, recover the value of the slave.
But if the plaintiff assented to the defendant's taking the slave
to New England either before or after he took her, and she was
lost without any negligence or omission of the defendant, the
plaintiff is not entitled to recover.) |
| 1825
Sct |
|
| 1825
Sct |
|
| 1825
DCT |
U.S. v. Clark, 25 F.Cas. 441, 2 Cranch
C.C. 620, 2 D.C. 620, No. 14,802 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1825)(A slave
convicted of manslaughter in Alexandria, D. C., may be punished
by burning in the hand and whipping.) |
| 1826
DCT |
U.S. v. Williams, 28 F.Cas. 647, 3
Cranch C.C. 65, 3 D.C. 65, No. 16,711 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1826)(In an
indictment in the District of Columbia under Acts Md.1796, c. 67,
§ 19, for aiding and advising the transportation of a slave,
there must be an averment of transportation from the District.) |
| 1826
DCT |
William v. Van Zandt, 29 F.Cas.
1286, 3 Cranch C.C. 55, 3 D.C. 55, No. 17,685 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1826)(Possession
of, and acts of ownership over, a colored person, are prima facie
evidence of slavery and ownership. In a suit for freedom, a
judgment against the defendant, upon his disclaimer, and default
in not rejoining, is not prima facie evidence of the freedom of
the petitioner, in a subsequent suit by him against another
defendant, although this other defendant should after such
judgment, have filed a paper in that suit, claiming the
petitioner as his slave.) |
| 1827
DCT |
Lee v. Preuss, 15 F.Cas. 223, 3 Cranch
C.C. 112, 3 D.C. 112, No. 8199 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1827)(In the case
of slaves entitled to their freedom at a future date, an
injunction will not be granted to prevent their delivery to the
owner on the ground of an anticipated violation of the law of the
state. A petition will not lie for freedom to which slaves will
be entitled at a future date.) |
| 1827
DCT |
Mandeville v.
Cookenderfer, 16 F.Cas. 580, 3 Cranch C.C. 257, 3 D.C. 257, No.
9009 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1827)(In slave states color indicating
African descent gave rise to a presumption that the person was a
slave. In an action against a keeper of a public stage office for
suffering plaintiff's slave to take passage in the stage coach,
whereby he escaped, color is prima facie evidence of slavery.
Every negro is prima facie to be considered as a slave and the
property of somebody; and he who acts, in respect to him, as if
he were a free man, acts at his peril, and the burden of proof is
on him to show that the negro is not a slave, or at least to show
such circumstances as will rebut the presumption arising from
color. The keeper of a stage office is liable to the owner of a
negro, if he permit him to take passage without the consent of
the owner. The keeper of a stage office is liable to the owner of
a colored slave for damages sustained by the running away of the
slave, if he suffers him to take passage and depart in the
stagecoach without the consent of the owner.) |
| 1827
Sct |
|
| 1827
DCT |
Richard v. Van Meter, 20 F.Cas.
682, 3 Cranch C.C. 214, 3 D.C. 214, No. 11,763 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1827)(A
contract between a master and his slave cannot be enforced,
either at law or in equity. (An attachment for contempt will lie
against a master who attempts to remove his slave out of the
jurisdiction of the court after he has notice or knowledge of the
slave's petition for freedom; and the court will also order the
slave to be brought into court by the marshal, that he may be
protected.) |
| 1827
Sct |
|
| 1827
Sct |
|
| 1827
Sct |
|
| 1828
DCT |
Battles v. Miller, 2 F.Cas. 1037,
3 Cranch C.C. 296, 3 D.C. 296, No. 1110 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1828)(If a
citizen of Virginia, the owner of a slave there, who had resided
in Virginia three whole years, remove into the county of
Washington with the bona fide intention to settle therein, and
bring the slave with him, at the time of his removal or within
one year thereafter, to reside in the said county, such
importation is not contrary to law; but a sale of such slave, in
the said county, within three years after such importation, may
entitle him to his freedom, although made to a person residing in
a state wherein slaves are lawfully held, and intending to take
the said slave to such state.) |
| 1828
DCT |
Johnson v. Mason, 13 F.Cas. 771, 3
Cranch C.C. 294, 3 D.C. 294, No. 7396 (l.,1828)(If a slave be not
brought into the county of Washington, D. C., for sale, or to
reside permanently, he is not entitled to freedom under Acts
Md.1796, c. 67.) |
| 1828
DCT |
Mandeville v.
Cookendorfer, 16 F.Cas. 586, 3 Cranch C.C. 397, 3 D.C. 397, No.
9010 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1828)(It is negligence in a stage office
keeper to suffer a slave to go off in the coach by means of a
false certificate of freedom; and the stage owners only are
liable for the damages. The principal, and not the agent, is
liable for the negligence of the latter.) |
| 1828
DCT |
Murray v. Dulany, 17 F.Cas. 1047, 3
Cranch C.C. 343, 3 D.C. 343, No. 9960 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1828)(In an
action by a mulatto for assault and battery, he cannot, at the
trial on the general issue, be compelled to prove his freedom. In
such a case the defendant waives the objection to the person of
plaintiff by pleading the general issue.) |
| 1829
DCT |
Butler v. Duvall, 4 F.Cas.
898, 3 Cranch C.C. 611, 3 D.C. 611, No. 2238 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1829)(The
object of the 21st section of the Maryland Act of 1796, c. 67,
which enacts that slaves' petitions for freedom shall be
commenced and tried only in the county where the petitioner shall
reside under the direction of his master, seems to have been to
prevent the filing of such petitions in the General Court and to
confine the original jurisdiction in such cases to the county
courts. It seems that this section is applicable only to persons
claimed as slaves by residents of Maryland. Maryland Act 1796, c.
67, § 21, requiring that slave's petition for freedom be
commenced and tried only in county where petitioner resides under
his master's direction, is not applicable to Washington County,
D. C., so far as its object is to designate which of Maryland
county courts shall have jurisdiction, as district contains only
one county. (The remedy of petition by a slave for freedom is not
confined to the Maryland courts, given jurisdiction by Maryland
statute to try such petitions, nor is it necessary that the right
to freedom should have accrued under the law of Maryland or in
Washington County, to authorize the filing of such a petition
therein. A petition for freedom is not a local action. The right
is personal, and accompanies the person wherever he goes, and
does not depend on any statute. A petition for freedom is an
action quasi in forma pauperis; and the court ought to see that
the petitioner is not entrapped in the subtleties of special
pleading, and for that purpose will permit repeated amendments,
especially after the other party has amended his pleadings.) |
| 1829
Sct |
|
| 1829
DCT |
Wigle v. Kirby's Executor,
29 F.Cas. 1179, 3 Cranch C.C. 597, 3 D.C. 597, No. 17,631 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1829)(Slaves
cannot be manumitted in Washington county, D. C., by last will,
if over 45 years old at the time the manumission is to take
effect.) |
| 1830
DCT |
Harris v. Alexander, 11 F.Cas.
611, 4 Cranch C.C. 1, 4 D.C. 1, No. 6113 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1830)(The
right of a citizen of the United States to import a slave into
the county of Washington, D. C., under Acts Md.1796, c. 67, § 2,
is forfeited by a sale of the slave within three years after the
importation.) |
| 1830
DCT |
Maria v. White, 16 F.Cas. 732, 3
Cranch C.C. 663, 3 D.C. 663, No. 9076 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1829)(Where
a member of congress takes a slave to Washington to wait on his
family while attending congress, and at the end of the session he
leaves the slave in Washington, she not being in a condition to
be carried back with safety, and permission is given her to hire
herself out and receive her wages to her own use, which she does
until the return of her master, who at her request offers to sell
her to her husband, a free colored man residing in Washington,
and the husband fails to raise the purchase money, there is not
an importation into Washington contrary to Act Md.1796, where it
appears that the master, at the time of taking the slave to
Washington, had no intention of importation, or that she should
be sold, or should reside therein. The residence contemplated by
Acts Md.1796, c. 67, § 1, which provides "that it shall not
be lawful to import or bring into this state, by land or water,
any negro, mulatto, or other slave for sale, or to reside within
this state," is a permanent residence, as
contradistinguished from a sojournment. (The residence
contemplated by the Maryland act, liberating slaves brought into
that state for sale or residence therein, is a permanent
residence as contradistinguished from a sojournment (Maryland Act
1796, ch. 67, § 1) Evidence that a slave claiming freedom
because of her importation into the county of Washington, D. C.,
contrary to the Maryland act liberating slaves brought into that
state for sale or residence therein, was brought into county by
her master to wait on his family while he attended Congress as
delegate from slave territory and left therein at end of session
until meeting of next Congress, with leave to hire herself out
and receive wages to her own use, which she did until master's
return, and that he offered, at her request, to sell her to her
husband, who was free colored man residing in district, for
stated sum, which was never paid, held not to warrant instruction
to find for master, but not conclusive evidence that petitioner
was brought into county for sale or residence therein (Act
Maryland 1796, ch. 67, § 1) Negro slave, petitioning for
freedom, held not entitled to instruction that her master's offer
and agreement to sell her to her husband, a free colored man
residing in the District of Columbia, was evidence of her
importation into the county of Washington contrary to the
Maryland Act liberating slaves brought into that state for sale
or residence therein, unless the jury believed from the
circumstances in evidence that the master had no intention at the
time of importation that petitioner should be sold or reside in
such county (Act Maryland 1796, ch. 67, § 1).) |
| 1830
DCT |
Quando v. Clagett, 20 F.Cas. 105,
4 Cranch C.C. 17, 4 D.C. 17, No. 11,492 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1830)(Where
the whole object of a will was apparently the emancipation of
slaves, specific directions being given therefor, the direction
"that my man H. is to serve one year to any person that will
give a fair hire for him," the proceeds to be paid one half
to him and the other half to the support of another slave, will
be construed as an emancipation.) |
| 1830
DCT |
Simon v. Paine's
Administrator, 22 F.Cas. 163, 4 Cranch C.C. 99, 4 D.C. 99, No.
12,873 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1830)(Slaves, escaping from Maryland and
suing in the District of Columbia for their freedom, will not be
delivered up to the person claiming to be their owner, upon
security to return them to Maryland; their claim for freedom
having arisen in the District, and their witnesses residing
there.) |
| 1830
DCT |
Stanback v. Waters, 22 F.Cas.
1042, 4 Cranch C.C. 2, 4 D.C. 2, No. 13,284 (Col.,1830)(In an
action on the case for receiving the plaintiff's slave in
Virginia and bringing him into the District of Columbia, it is
not necessary to prove that the defendant knew the slave to be
the slave of the plaintiff, though the scienter be averred in the
declaration. Difference between the enticing of a servant, and
the abduction of a slave. an action for enticing the plaintiff's
slave from the service of the plaintiff, knowing him to be the
plaintiff's slave, the scienter must be proved.) |
| 1830
Sct |
|
| 1831
DCT |
Butler v. Duvall, 4 F.Cas.
901, 4 Cranch C.C. 167, 4 D.C. 167, No. 2239 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1831)(If
slaves be removed by their owner from Virginia to the county of
Washington, D.C., and there sold within three years after such
removal, it may be inferred that they were imported for sale, and
if so, they are entitled to freedom. Slaves carried by the owner
from Virginia to Maryland, with intent to reside therein, are
entitled to freedom. Slaves removed by their owner from Maryland,
or Georgetown in the District of Columbia, to Virginia, and kept
therein 1 whole year, are entitled to freedom under the law of
Virginia, unless the owner took the oath prescribed by that law
within the time thereby limited; but after the lapse of 25 or 30
years, it may be presumed that such oath was taken as prescribed,
and within the limited time.) |
| 1831
DCT |
Gilbert v. Ward, 10 F.Cas. 348, 4
Cranch C.C. 171, 4 D.C. 171, No. 5415 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1831)(On a
petition for freedom under a will, the burden of proof is on the
respondent to show that the petitioner was more than 45 years of
age, or that the manumission was in prejudice of creditors, and
that, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to freedom under
Act. Md.1796, c. 67, § 13.) |
| 1831
DCT |
Kitty v. McPherson, 14 F.Cas.
709, 4 Cranch C.C. 172, 4 D.C. 172, No. 7860 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1831)(A
slave, manumitted by will after a term of service, is not free
until the term of service has expired; but the court will
continue the injunction originally granted to prevent the removal
of the petitioner from the jurisdiction of the court, unless the
defendant will give bond to the United States, with good
security, that he will not suffer or permit her to be so
removed.) |
| 1831
DCT |
Mary v. Talburt, 16 F.Cas. 949, 4
Cranch C.C. 187, 4 D.C. 187, No. 9192 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1831)(Where
a slave brought into the county of Washington, D. C., from
Virginia by her owner afterwards runs away and her owner sells
her "running," she does not thereby lose the benefit of
the provision of Acts Md.1796, providing that a slave, under
certain circumstances, shall be free, if imported for sale or to
reside. Where a person goes to Washington county, D.C., to
reside, he may, under Acts Md.1796, c. 67, § 2, lawfully bring
his slaves with him; but if he sells them within three years
after his removal, he loses the benefit of the exception in his
favor contained in such section, and the slaves are entitled to
their freedom under section 1 of such act.) |
| 1831
Sct |
|
| 1831
DCT |
Samuel v. Childs, 21 F.Cas. 306, 4
Cranch C.C. 189, 4 D.C. 189, No. 12,287 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1831)(Children
born of a slave mother, entitled to or promised her freedom at
the end of a fixed period, are born slaves, and so continue even
after the mother obtains her freedom. Two witnesses are necessary
to a deed of manumission under Acts Md.1796, c. 67, § 29.) |
| 1832
DCT |
Delilah v. Jacobs, 7 F.Cas. 415, 4
Cranch C.C. 238, 4 D.C. 238, No. 3773 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1832)(Section
12 of the compact between Virginia and Maryland which authorizes
the citizens of each state to bring their effects into the other
state free of duty, does not prevent one state from prohibiting
the importation of slaves from the other.) |
| 1832
DCT |
Esther v. Buckner, 8 F.Cas. 797, 4
Cranch C.C. 253, 4 D.C. 253, No. 4537 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1832)(But if
he did perfectly, entirely, and completely remove to the city of
Washington, and had rented a house and put some part of his
family and furniture into it, and claimed the privileges of a
resident of that city on or before November, 1826, though he had
not removed all his family and property, it was competent for him
to bring the rest of his family and furniture to Washington after
his removal, and his so bringing them after his said removal did
not prevent his being a resident on or before November, 1826. A
citizen and resident of Virginia commenced, bona fide, removing
his furniture and family to Washington, D. C., in November, 1826,
and continued such act of removal bona fide, at intervals during
the month of December and up to January 7, 1827, and then, within
one year thereafter, introduced the petitioners into the county
of Washington, D. C. The court held that the petitioners were not
thereby entitled to freedom. |
| 1833
CirCt |
|
| 1833
DCT |
Moore v. Jacobs, 17 F.Cas. 686, 4
Cranch C.C. 312, 4 D.C. 312, No. 9767 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1833)(A
slave, owned in Alexandria, D. C., was removed with her owner to
Maryland to reside. She ran away from her owner in Maryland and
came to Alexandria; her owner in Maryland selling her (running)
to a resident of Alexandria. Held, that the escape of the slave
into Alexandria was not a voluntary importation into Alexandria,
and the sale was not such a sale as could give her a right to
freedom under Acts Md.1796, c. 67.) |
| 1833
DCT |
U.S. v. Johnson, 26 F.Cas. 625, 4
Cranch C.C. 303, 4 D.C. 303, No. 15,486 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1833)(In
an indictment under Acts Md.1796, c. 67, § 19, for assisting, by
advice, the transporting of a slave, whereby his owner was
deprived of the service of his slave, it is not necessary to
state what the advice was or how it assisted; and it is not
necessary to state a criminal intent, or that the accused knew he
was a slave and intended to run away.) |
| 1833
DCT |
U.S. v. Prout, 27 F.Cas. 625, 4 Cranch
C.C. 301, 4 D.C. 301, No. 16,094 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1833)(On
conviction of a free person on an indictment under Acts Md.1751,
c. 14, § 10, for enticing a slave to run away, where it appears
that the latter actually ran away, the offender may be fined
under Acts Md.1796, c. 67, § 19, without an averment of loss of
the service of such slave by the master. A count in an indictment
under Acts Md.1796, c. 67, § 19, for giving a pass to a slave,
is bad where it does not aver that the master or owner was
thereby deprived of the service of his slave.) |
| 1834
DCT |
Bowman v. Barron, 3 F.Cas. 1075, 4
Cranch C.C. 450, 4 D.C. 450, No. 1738 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1834)(A
Virginia slave of a Virginia owner was loaned by the widow to her
son-in-law in Washington, D. C., until the estate should be
settled and distribution made. The slave resided in Washington,
under that loan, more than a year, and was then sent back to
Virginia, and on settlement of the estate was assigned to one of
the distributees. Held, that the slave did not thereby acquire a
right to freedom under Acts Md.1796, c. 67, although the
administrator, who was neither party nor privy to the lending,
afterwards knew of it and did not object.) |
| 1834
DCT |
Brooks v. Nutt, 4 F.Cas. 297, 4
Cranch C.C. 470, 4 D.C. 470, No. 1958 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1834)(Children
born of a slave mother, entitled to or promised her freedom at
the end of a fixed period, are born slaves, and so continue even
after the mother obtains her freedom.) |
| 1834
DCT |
Chapman v. Fenwick, 5 F.Cas. 477,
4 Cranch C.C. 431, 4 D.C. 431, No. 2604 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1834)(Under
Act Md.1796, c. 67, § 13, which provides in part that "no
manumission hereafter to be made by will shall be effectual to
give freedom to any slave or slaves, if the same shall be in
prejudice of creditors," the burden of proof lies on the
creditors to show that an emancipation by will is in their
prejudice. Where testatrix charged her land and her personalty
with her debts and legacies, and emancipated her slaves, and her
personal estate was not sufficient without the slaves, but with
the real estate was more than sufficient, the slaves were
entitled to their freedom. Emancipation by will stands on
stronger ground than a specific legacy, and does not need the
assent of the executor. If the manumission is to be considered as
a specific legacy, the assent of the executor was given by
suffering the negroes to go at large as free for a period of
eight years after the death of the testatrix. A testatrix charged
her lands, as well as her personal assets, with the payment of
her debts and legacies, and by her will manumitted certain of her
slaves, to take effect at her death.) |
| 1834
DCT |
Crawford v. Slye, 6 F.Cas. 778, 4
Cranch C.C. 457, 4 D.C. 457, No. 3371 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1834)(The
list of imported slaves, required by Acts Md.1796, c. 67, § 11,
must designate the sex. The name "Jo" does not
designate the sex.) |
| 1834
DCT |
Hobbs v. Magruder, 12 F.Cas. 265,
4 Cranch C.C. 429, 4 D.C. 429, No. 6551 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1834)(The
sale, in the District of Columbia, of a Maryland slave, brought
to the District by his owner, does not give the slave a title to
freedom under Acts Md.1817, c. 112, which prohibits the sale to a
nonresident of the state, of any slave having a contingent right
to freedom.) |
| 1834
DCT |
In re Runaways and Petitioners for
Freedom, 21 F.Cas. 1, 4 Cranch C.C. 489, 4 D.C. 489, No. 12,137 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1834)(The
marshal has not a right to include, in his account against the
United States, his imprisonment fees for persons committed in the
District of Columbia as runaway servants or slaves, under the
adopted laws of Maryland.) |
| 1834
DCT |
Janes v. Buzzard, 13 F.Cas. 344,
Hempst. 240, No. 7206A (Super.Ark.,1834)(The fact of liability to
pay the value of a hired slave, in case he run away, is
inadmissible in evidence, in an action by the master against the
hirer for the value of his service for the balance of the term of
hiring and after he had run away, to affect the value of his
services. In an action of assumpsit for the work of slaves, a
petition alleging that the work was performed by certain negro
slaves, servants of plaintiff, is sufficient, since assumpsit is
maintainable as well to recover for the labor of servants as for
that of slaves for life. A person who hires the slave of another
is responsible for hire, though the negro may run away before the
expiration of the time, and the fact that the possessor may be
responsible for the value of the slave in the event of running
away will not at all diminish the claim to hire.) |
| 1834
DCT |
Keziah v. Slye, 14 F.Cas. 451, 4
Cranch C.C. 463, 4 D.C. 463, No. 7752 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1834)(A
slave imported into the county of Washington, D. C., from
Virginia, under Acts Md.1796, c. 67, § 9, is entitled to
freedom, unless recorded within three months thereafter.) |
| 1834
Sct |
|
| 1834
DCT |
U.S. v. Lloyd, 26 F.Cas. 986, 4 Cranch
C.C. 468, 4 D.C. 468, No. 15,617 (C.C.Dist.Col.,1834)(A simple
assault and battery on a slave is not an indictable offense. Such
an assault, even with intent to murder him, is not an offense at
common law. The owner of a slave who beats him cruelly, and
exposes him, so beaten, to public view, is guilty of a
misdemeanor at common law.) |
| |
|
