The Alexandria herald. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1811-1826, 1823-05-07
SUPREME COIJRT.

SUPREME COURT.
TAUNTON, APRIL S0.--AmoDg the cri.
minal trials las, week before the supreme
court now sitting in this town, one which
excited something mere than ordinary
Interest, was on one indictment against
Csmillus Griffith of Alexandra, in the
District OF Columbia, for an assault and
battery and false Imprisonment Of a CO
ioied man calling himself John Randolph,
at New Bedford, in Nov. last. The cir.
cOmstahces IN which the assault and bat
fcry charged in the indictment. as we
have before had occasion to state, origi
mated in an attempt by Griffith to arrest
Randolph as slave, under Jaw OF The
u. States authorizing slave proprietors
TO arrest fugitive slaves in any of the
states OF the union. The attempt 10
seize Randolph not being successful, a
pr ecu,ion was soon alter commenced
az Ss' Griffith for an assault and battery
and detention oil Randolph white endea>
vouring TO make the arrest. The assault
and battery was fully proved, and Jus
tihca,iun offered, ihe, the law OF the u.
3. referred TO, authorized the owners OF
fugitive slaves 10 reclaim them whese-
ever found that Griffith was an agent
properly qualified by the administrator
of'be original owner.in Virginia, to ar
rest Randolph in right of the owne tina,
Randolph resisted the execution of this
authority and ofthe Jaws of the u ). !; aid
that the assault and battery complained of
was mace i'll consequence OF this r.sis-
lance.
The identity OF Randolph was clearly
proved by witness from Virginia, who
testified that he knew him several years
ago while slave in Virginia and that
he had since seen him in New Bedford,
when he acknowledged that he had run
away from Virginia. and had assumed
the name of John Randolph, instead of
ginia. Randolph was not present at the
trial. and is moi known TO be within the
state.
Although il seemed to be admitted by
the attorney general, that Randolph was
the slave wholhad made his escape from
Virginia, still tbe right of Griffith to arr
rest him was RESISTED on several grounds
with much earDestness. One which
seemed TO receive the particular consid-
Grafton of the court, related to the au-
lhority which Griffith had, as agent of
the administrator in Virginia, to seize
Randolph while resident within the lim--
its of Massachusetts. BY decisions Of
the supreme coart oil this state; an adj
mihistrator in another state cabhot take
possession of property belonging to his
intcstate here without having first obtain
cd letters Of administration in this state.
This was not done in the present case,
ard il was commended on the part ct the
commonwealth that the administrators in
Virginia, or his agent, had no right to
seize Randolph as the property of she
owne. in Wis mia, and could not there
fore Justify the assault and battery in at
tempting 10 make the arrest. Such must
clearly be the effect, ir Randolph could
be considered as fyoherty by the laws of
Massachusetts The Judge, (chief JUS
tice Parker was Of opinion that he was
10 be 80 considered, and accordingly in
srucied sbe jury that Griffith had no lie
gal right as agent of the administrator in
Virginia, to seize Randolph, aud conse-
oUently that the justification set up had
not been made out.
Il was at the same time remark ed by
fbe court, that the question whether
Ro76olph, as slave, was 10 be consider
ed as property GBdel the laws ofthis state
End ss such, subject to the powers OF adj
minis,raJors here. might DC submitted for
Dc decision Of The wholc court, If The
Jury Should find verdict OF guilty. The
csVse was submitted without argument,
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 Plymouth II
October next.