The Massachusetts spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1821-1823, 1823-05-07
SUPREME COURT.

before the Supreme Court now sitting
in this town, one which excited some
thing more than ordinary interest. was
on an indictment against Cdmillus Grit
fifth, of Alexandria, in the District of Co
lumbia, for an assault and battery and
false imprisonment of coloured man,
calling himself John Randolph, at New
Bedford in November last.-The cir
cumstances in which the assault and bat
terry charged in the indictment, as we
have before had occasion TO state, orig
mated in an attempt by Griffith to ar
rest Randolph as slave, under law Of
the UnitedlStates authorizing slave pro-
prietors to arrest fugitive slaves in any
Of the Sites of the Union. The at
tempt TO seize Randolph not being sue
Cessfub prosecution was soon after
commenced against Griffith for an as
sault and battery and detention of Ram
dolph, while endeavouring to make the
arrest. The assault and battery was
fully proved, and a Justification offered,
that the Inv of the U. States referred
to, authorized the owners of fugitive
slaves to reclaim them wherever found !;
that Griffith was an agent properly quail
flied by the administrator ofthe original
owner in Virginia, to arrest Randolph in
right of The owner; that Randolph re.
sisted the execution of this authority,
and of The laws Of the United States !;
and that the assault and battery com
planned ofwas made in consequence of
this resistance.
The Identity of Randolph was clearly
proved bya witness from Virginia, who
testihedthat he knew him several wears
ago, while slave in Virginia and that
he had ince seen HMM New-Bedford,
when ht acknowledged that he had run
away hpm Virginia, and had assumed
the rami of John Randolph, instead Of
William Mason, the name he bore in
Virginia Randolph was not present at
the trlal,and is not known to be within
the State
Although it seemed to be admitted by
the Attoney General that Randolph
was the shye who had made his escape
from Virginia, still the right of Griffith
to arrest him was resisted on several
grounds With much earnestness. One
which seemed to receive the particular
consideration of the Court, related to
the authority which Griffith had, as a.
gent OF the administrator in Virginia, to
seize Randolph while resident within
the limits # Massachusetts. BY decis-
ions of The Supreme Court Of this State,
an administrator in another State cannot
take possession of property belonging to
his intestate here, without having first
obtained letters of administration in this
State. This was not done in the pres
ent case; and it was contended on the
part Of the Commonwealth that the adj
nlnistrator il Virginia, or lis agent, had
no right TO seize Randolph as the prop
erty OF the owner in Virginia, and could
not therefore justify the assault and bat
terry in attempting 10 make the arrest.
Such must clearly be the effect, if RAN
dolph couldbe considered as property by
the laws Of Massachusetts. The Judge,
(Chief Justice Parker) was of opinion
that he was to be so considered, and ac-
cordingly instructed the jury that Grit
nth had no legal right as agent Of the
administrator in Virginia, to seize Ran
dolph, and consequently that the justiti-
cation sell up had not been made out
II was at the same time remarked by
the Court, that the question, whether
Randolph, as slave, was 10 be consider
ed as property under the laws of this
State, and as such, subject to the powers
of administrators here, might he submit
ted for the decision Of the whole Court,
if the jury should fad verdict of guilty.
The cause was submitted without argu-
ment, and verdict of guilty returned.
And the question above referred to, is.
We understand, to be presented TO the
whole Court at the law term at Ply
mouth in October
Taunton Reporter.
A circumstance Of most atrocious
character transpired in Wethersfeld,
on Friday night Of last week. Two
men, in a one-horse wagon, driving
through Wethers6eId street, met a young
lady returning from neighbours imme-