Case ID: f-cas_19/html/0727-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "THE COURT", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Case No. 11,183.
    PIPSICO v. BONTZ.
    [3 Cranch, C. C. 425.] 
    
    Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
    April Term, 1829.
    Indebitatus Assumpsit fob Wohk and Laiioh— Competency of Colored Man as Witness.
    1. If work and labor be done according to special agreement, the plaintiff may recover upon a general indebitatus assumpsit.
    2. In Alexandria, a colored man is not a competent witness for or against a white man.
    PITCAIRN (LIENOW v.). See Case. No. 8,-341.
    Indebitatus assumpsit for work and labor.
    The plaintiff offered evidence of a special agreement for $100 a year, and that the service was performed according to the agreement.
    The defendant’s counsel objected, that there was no count upon the special agreement.
    THE COritT overruled the objection on the authority of tlie Bank of Columbia v. Patterson, 7 Cranch [11 U. S.] 299.
    Mr. Taylor and Mr. Neale, for plaintiff.
    Mr. Hooe and Mr. Hewitt, for defendants.
    Tlie defendants’ counsel offered a free mulatto as a witness for the defendants.
    Mr. Taylor, for plaintiff, objected; and cited the Virginia laws (Rev. Code, p. 187, December 17, 1792. c. 103, § 0), that “no negro or mulatto shall be a witness, except in jileas of tlie commonwealth against negroes or mulat.toes; or in civil picas where ne-groes or muiattoes alone shall be parties.”
   THE COURT

rejected tlie witness.