Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1859-12-03

Of their owner they had been allowed to live with
their husband and father, the slaves Of Hoffman,
in the neighborhood of the executor in Freder;ok
county, Nd.
The counsel for the prosecution asked the court
to instruct the Jury that under the laws Of Mary.
land n bequest of freedom was a specific legacy .
that if the executor allowed them to 20 at largo,
It was an assent to such legacy, which could not
be recalled, which made them absolutely free,
and that therefore the Orphans Court for Freders
lex county transcribed its powers in passing an
oider 10 sell free negroes, and it's order and decree
was Void as to them. In support Of this position
'hey cited the case of Fenwick We. Chapman, De-
cided oy the Supreme Court of the United States
IN y Peters. Messrs. Meredith & johnson for the
defence commended that the court had no jurisdic-
dicton to consider tho legality of The claim of ser.
c'ce under which the negroes had been held in
Maryland; that the only question for the court
and jury to consider was the fact whether the
negroes were actually held to survice or labor In
Maryland, and whether they had ESCAPED there.
from, and having SO escaped, whether Myers, be.
ing duly authorized, had captured them and re-.
stored them to their owners.
1t was admitted all round that these negroes had
been so held in Maryland under her laws. that
they had escaped, been recaptured and taken back
again. 1t was argued that q Pennsylvania court
could not directly or indirectly try the question as
to whether their "%holding to service" was eqal or
not. 1t could only inquire into the fact of the
holding, not The legality of tho fact, and that the
order and decree of the Orphans Court for Fred
rrick county was conclusive evidence of. their be-
ing hold to service or labor. That in Maryland
the only manner In which the title Of a negro TO
freedom could be established was in a court Of law
on petition, and that q Pennsylvania court could
not try the question directly or collaterally.
But the court held, and so instructed the Jury.
that the question for them to try was whether in
tact and in law the negroes were slaves when thew
escaped from Maryland; that it was proved that
they were manumitted under rule; that if after
wards they went at large with the assent of tho
such going at large amounted to an as
sent to their legacy of freedom, which made them
enti'ied to their freedom in Maryland, on the
OF Fenwick VS.. Chapman, and that.
the defendant was guilty of kidnapping:
that the order and decree of the Orphans Court
conclusive evidence only that the neproes
were ordered to be sold, but not that thew nor.
slaves, or that the court had any right to pass apv
~ u neSroeS were Tree the deCr00
would not make them slaves.
The jury was out for some time, but finally rem.
dered a verdict of guilty. The conviction rem.
ders Myers liable to confinement in the peniten,;.-
ry Tor not less than FIVE nor more than tveIye
years, and a fine of not less than 5000 for each
negro kidnapped. He was convicted of taking
tpo.
The court and jury having decided that these
negroes were free from the time of their arrest.
The question arises, will the Governor of Penn,,I.
vania demand their surrender as kidnapped oit;.
zens of this State? If they were white, he uu.
doubtedly would.
The Maryland papers talk of taking this casa
up on a writ of error to the U. S. Supreme Co,,,
put we DO not see, exactly, how it is to be done
In the meantime. Myers will 20 to the ~pepi,en.
tiary' where he ought to have been long apo.
whether the ruling of the court shall turn out 70
De good or bad law, the justice of M ye.s' sentenc.
'anno. iairly be questioned. The penitentiary il
the right place for him and all of his tribe.