# Daniel v. Guy (1857)

Abby Guy sued for her and her children's freedom from William Daniel, who had seized them as slaves. The first jury ruled in Guy's favor. In Daniel v. Guy, 19 Ark. 121 (1857), the Arkansas Supreme Court (English, C.J.), reversed that verdict because the trial judge had incorrectly instructed the jury.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
19 Ark. 121
Daniel v. Guy et al.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Ashley County
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
If it appear that he belongs to the white race, he is presumed to be free.
If it be doubtful, whether he belong to the white, or the negro race, there is no basis for legal presumption one way or the other; but it is safest to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Where it is stated on the face of the declaration, in a suit for freedom by several, that the plaintiffs are the "mother and her minor children," the defendant would hardly be required to prove the fact so admitted.
An instruction that every presumption, consistent with reason, should be indulged in favor of freedom, is too general and abstract, in a suit for freedom, to be of any practical legal advantage, unless the Court should also tell the jury what presumptions it considered consistent with reason.
If the plaintiff's mother, in a suit for freedom, was always held and treated as a slave, and the plaintiff herself so held, treated and acted, it is prima facie evidence that she and her children are slaves, unless they were emancipated.
Persons skilled in the natural history of the races of men, are competent witnesses to state the distinguishing marks between the negro and the white race, in suits for freedom, when the issue depends upon the question whether the plaintiffs belonged to the one race or the other.
The jury are the judges of the weight of the evidence.
The plaintiffs petitioned the Court for permission to sue as paupers, stating the grounds upon which they claimed to be free; the defendant filed an answer controverting the grounds stated in the petition: the Court, on motion, struck the answer from the files; Held, That the defendant could not have read his answer as evidence on the trial; and there was no error in striking it from the files.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Ashley county.
The Hon. THEODORIC F. SORRELS, Circuit Judge.
YELL, for the appellant.
PIKE & CUMMINS, for the appellees.
[Opinion of the court by Chief Justice ELBERT H. ENGLISH. Justice CHRISTOPHER C. SCOTT not participating.]
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse