Bookfield v. Stanton
| Decision Date | 31 December 1858 |
| Citation | 6 Jones 156,51 N.C. 156 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | WILLIAM BOOKFIELD v. JONATHAN STANTON. |
In an action to try the right of a person of color to his freedom, where the question was, whether the maternal grand-mother and mother had, or had not, for a long time been treated and regarded as free, it was Held that a bill of sale for the plaintiff, their descendant, was not material; but that an attachment levied upon the grand-mother was pertinent and proper evidence.
A presumption arises from the fact, of a person's being black, that he is a slave.
Where a person was born free, no length of illegal and usurped dominion over him, can make him a slave.
Where it was found that the maternal grand-mother and mother of the plaintiff had once been slaves, but for thirty years, and more, had been regarded and treated as free persons, it was Held to be proper for the Court to instruct the jury, that they ought to infer their emancipation in some mode prescribed by law.
TRESPASS vi et armis and false imprisonment, tried before HEATH, J., at the last Fall Term of Craven Superior Court.
The action was brought to try the right of the plaintiff to his freedom, and it was admitted that he was in the possession and under the control of the defendant, who claimed him as his slave; and it was admitted, further, that the plaintiff was black. The plaintiff introduced evidence to show, that for thirty years, and more, prior to his birth, his mother and his maternal grand-mother were known, recognised and admitted to be free persons of color, and had generally passed and acted as such; that they were generally known as the McKim negroes; that his mother, as a free person of color, removed from the county of Carteret to Hyde, and lived there as such. She was reputed there to be the wife of a slave, but lived to herself, and was controlled by no one. There was other testimony of this kind, which it was not deemed necessary to state.
The defendant introduced evidence, tending to show, that the mother and maternal grand-mother were claimed and treated as slaves. Among other things, he offered in evidence an attachment in behalf of one Elijah Cannady, against John McKim, issued against him as an inhabitant of another State, returnable to the County Court of Carteret, which was returned levied upon a negro woman, named Beck, and her children, Fan and Olly, at September Term, 1809. The record shows no further proceeding upon this attachment, but on the execution docket of that term, in the column of “sheriff's returns,” is the following memorandum: “Owen Stanton paid the judgment and cost to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff paid me the cost.” This evidence was objected to by the plaintiff, and ruled out by the Court. The defendant excepted. The defendant also offered in evidence a bill of sale for the plaintiff, to show that he had been regarded as a slave, which was rejected by the Court. Defendant again excepted.
The Court charged the jury:
First. That a presumption arose from the plaintiff's color, (being black,) that he was a slave, and it was a question of fact, for them to say, whether this presumption was met and overcome by the other evidence in the cause.
Secondly. That no length of illegal and usurped dominion over the plaintiff, would make him a slave, if he was born free.
Thirdly. That if they found, from the evidence, that the maternal grand-mother and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Patrick
...that he is generally reputed to be free, and has always acted and passed as a free man. See Jarman v. Humphrey, 51 N.C. 28, and Brookfield v. Stanton, 51 N.C. 156. If such evidence be admissible to establish the fact of a negro's being free, when it is to operate in his favor, it seems to u......
- Griffin v. Hinson