Case ID: h-j_3/html/0158-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Nicholson, J,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Queen vs. Neale.
    Appeal frojn Charles County Court. This was a petition for freedom; and under the act of 1804, ch. 55, s. 2, the petitioner, (now appellant,) exhibited her affidavit, stating that she believed she could not have a fair and impartial trial in that court, and by her counsel moved the court co direct that the pecord and proceedings should be removed as directed by the above mentioned act; but the court, [Clarke, A. J.] overruled the motion. The petitioner excepted. The case was afterwards tried, and the verdict and judgment being for the defendant, the petitioner appealed to this court.
    A petition for freedom is comprehended within the general terms o'f suits of actions .in the second section of the act of 3804, clI* 55, relative «o their removal from one coun ?y to another, ant| county court, in which the suit $8 instituted, are foouml to transmit the proceedings to the judges ofatiy county court within the district, upon the affidavit ©f either of the parties competent to make an affidavit, or upon such wilier proper ami Competent dvi* <ience as may be ©ffbred in support vf the suggestion, that an impartial trial cinnoi: be M
    
      A negro petitioning ibr bis iyeedom is not competent to make such an affidavit, his slavery ot fteedom being then _ tub jydice, smd if a slave‘he is excluded by the act of 1717, oft 13,
    The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. Buchanan, Nicholson, and Earle, J. by
    
      F. S. Fey, for the Appellant;
    and by
    Chapman, for the Appellee,
   Nicholson, J,

delivered the opinion of the court. A petition for freedom is comprehended within the general terms of suits or actions in the second section of the act of 1804, ch. 55, and the county court, in which the suit is instituted, are bound to transmit the proceedings to the judges of any county court within the district, upon the affidavit of either of the parties competent to jnake an affidavit, or upon such other proper and competent evidence as may be offered in support of the suggestion that an impartial trial cannot be had in the county in which the petition for freedom is depending.

A negro, petitioning for his freedom, is not competent to make such an affidavit — his slavery or freedom being then sub judicc, and if a slave, he is excluded by the act of 1717, ch. 18.

judgment affirmed.