Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-12-11

IRON his custody, the most summary manner Tb;s
oscharge isaiso relied on, rs another ground of the
piaintiii CLAIM Alter this aid when Rodgers was
probably, under some degree of coercion he exccut-
ed m Ohio the deed aforesaid, and she at the same
,'me indented herself TO him for years, and was
brought backby him into the state of Virginia where
alter this time, the plaintiff was born.-rhe superior
court gave judgment, upon u special verdict for the
defendants, and on I'm appeal their Judgment was u
unanimously affirmed by the Court OF Appeals.
LEWIS VS.. Fullerton.
Inc court Is OF opinion that there is no error
IN the opinions of the superior court. impeach-
ed by the ID and Sd exceptions. The rea-
sons IN support of those opinions, are ST. clear
and self evident, that they need not he advert
ed to.
Nor Is there any error in the other opinions
OF that court, objected to by the appellant,
anu which go TO the merits of his title.
The appellant claims his right To freedom
on three grounds list, on the right to free
dom alleged TO have been acquired by his mo-
ther, prior TO his birth, by having sojourned
within the state of Ohio, and as is further al
leged, been there employed by her master :
2dly, on the ground that her right to freedom
was prior TO his birth, established bv the iu.Ig-
ment on the writ of habeas corpus stated in
the record and 3dly, he claims it under the
deed OF emancipation contained in the proceed
ings ; and which was also executed prior to
the birth OF the appellant. 1t is readily con-
coded that ii his mothers right to freedom
was valid and complete, prior to his birth, on
any OF these grounds, his right to freedom
follows rs necessary consequence.
Under the first enquiry we must throw en-
ureiy out OF view the subsequent residence of
the mother within the state of Ohio, with the
alleged consent of Rodgers her former master.
Whatever may be the effect of residence
dherein, for great length of time, and with
the assent aforesaid Whatever may be the
effect OF this circumstance in relation to a
person who may thereby have become one
al the permanent members of that state,
the residence now in question is of a far differ
,ent character.
There is no evidence in this case of the mo
Tiers residence within the state of Ohio, prior
to the appellants birth, but that she was once
seen, on Sunday, working at sugar camp
therein, In the absence of her master, and with
out any evidence that it was with his permis-
sion.-ln reference to this evidence, the court
below was asked to instruct the Jury, that il
they should find that she was employed by
her master within that state, in making sugar
or any other local service, not merely transi-
tory, and for howe, er short ii time, they must
find verdict for the plaintiff. The udgmen,
oil the superior court refusing to give that in
structon was, IN our opinion, entirely correct
Such am occupation for short time, and even
for the benefit of the master, and probably in
his presence, could never operate ain enamel
patton of his slave. Ii could not so operate
when the dnimuS reUertend strongly existed ir
hlm both InrelatlOn To himsclf, and to his slave
There IS indeed hut shade Of difference be-
Tween such residence this, (if indeed il
can be called residence,) and the mere right
ofpassage through the state and such con.
hot IL
white down to nothing, the right of the
citizens of each state, within every other state
guaranteed to them by the constitution. Such
AN occupation cannot be said to carry with il
evidence OF the assent of the master that she
should cease to remain his property, and be-
come member OF the state Of Ohio, without
which the regulations of that state on the sub.
Ject OF emancipation, cannot attach.
As Tor the I'd ground of claim, under TN G
Judgment upon the habeas corpus, il has been
truly answered, that that Judgment has moi
affirmed the mothers right to freedom.-Ever
II II had, and this mode of proceeding was e-
galzed by the laws of that state, las it seems
not to he by the laws of this,) in favour of
slave against his master, those laws are moi
found In the case before us and even if they
were, II might well be questioned whether the
judgment aforesaid could have concluded the
The right ofour citizens under the constitu-
ton to reclaim their fugitive slaves from other
states, would be nearly nuty, if that claim
was permitted TO be intercepted by proceed.
ing like the one in question a proceeding
OF so extremely summary character that i
affords no fair opportunity to a master debe-
rateIy to support his right of property in his
slave. Such proceeding ought not, there.
fore, to be conclusive on the subject.
AS to the deed Of emancipation contained
IN the record, that deed, taken in connection
with the evidence offered to support it. shews
that it had reference to the state of Virginia
1t IS statedto have been made by John Rodger.
aaresldent of the state of Virginia ;and the les.
umony shews, that it formed part ola con.
tract whereby the slave Milly was to b,
brought back. las she was brought back into
tne state OF Virginia.-Her object, therefore
LNaa Ii L...- l. L