Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1851-08-04

| IMPORTANT TO SLAVE Owners AND OTHERs--A
case of considerable Importance Southern men, and
involving some points OF general interest, was decided
by Judge Key, at Cincinnati, on Saturday lssi The
Cincinnati Commercial says:
The plaintiff, Harper. a farmer in Boone coun-
ty, Kentucky, and the defendant well known co.
!ored person OF this city, named Keyte A bill was
filled by the paintiffo toreclose mortgage; and the
defence was want of consideration for The nortea
fhe faeis were these: The complainant had been The
owner ofthree slaves man, he of the deendant)
woman, and child, the ofispring Of the ohe. two
slaves The three were worth, in Kentucky about
~ $40. They escaped tTon their master and came to
TINS city IN io49, where they were concealed The
master pursued, but wac unable discover them; and
the detendantopened negotiation with the complain
ant tor the purchase oil the three slaves FINALLY tey
were sold to him Tor $3.50, and bill of sale executed
in this city by complainant, in which he warraned that
he haG good title to the slaves but did not undertake.
tog give possession OF them. The defendant executed
70 nm prom sorry notes tor the payment o. the money
ana mortage, on which the suit was brought. The
FIRST point urged by the Defence was that Kevte was
deceived by the complainant who Was charged to have
represented the female slave be the wife of his fde
hdant1 son; both verbally, and in the bill of sale
when IN TACT, as defendant lined she was not-next'
mat the plaintiff had warranted his title good to the
slaves, when Gas defendant insisted at the time OF the
GsGape ,he man was not slave The third point Of
esience was, that contract with the State of Ohio
ior the purchase OF fugitive slaves then within the
state, could not be sustained under our laws
IN relation to The first point, held by Judge
S1 t"ot 7>uifouy showed that the verbal
sen'atons OF complainant in regard to the relation ax
lsuGs between the male and female slaves were in nc
soTdance with the 2cs that the statement in the bill of
SAFE, that she was the wife Of defendant was mere
matter OF description; and also that according TO The
osages prevailing among slaves, she was properly des
cribed as his wife. F' NV
1t was held by the Court, in regard TO the second
point, that it appeared from the testimony, that the
male slave had once to the city of Cincinnati
driving wagon with his master and had voluntarily
returned on the sauna day--and that, although the
save might then, aceordngsto the rules of law. uni
yersay recognised in the Courts of Ohio have assert
ed his freedom, and could not have been compaled hv
his master to return, yet that having voluntarily re-
turned the status Or legal condition of the slave 80 re-
turning to Kentucky, remained according to the dec-
SONS OF the Courts OF that State without change Uo-
On the third point the Court held that it having been
decided by the Supreme Court of the United States
IN case involving the same question that the stains
or legal condition OF alleged fugitive from service
was 10 De viewed according to the law of The State
rom wnlcn the escape was made; ard the Constitution
OF the United States, andthe act of Congress then in
force than 'shich as srpounded By the United Sfates
supreme Court, M's court kneao no higher lam
giving right OF recapture; such right of re.capure
Was sufncent 10 sustain contract of sale executed hv
the master In free State conveying fugtiyes then in
such tree Stale, to citizen Of such State The Court
lurther remarked that the effect of such conveyanre
would be to place The ugitfves at once in the
o. Tree persons as completely any other citizens OF
ONO A decree was cordingly rendered for ,he
complainant tor the amount of the mortgage notes.