Daily union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1865-1866, 1866-05-12

An IMPORTANT DECISION ny THE FREEDNEN's
CouRT-IIRlyY DAMAGES AwARBED.-An mpor-
tant decision has just been made by Judge Law
renee, Of tie Frcedmcn's Court, in the case Of
Ella Stevenson rs. james i. lIallums. The facts,
a. they appear in evidence. are substantially as
follows: York Freeman, father Of the plaintiff,
Uls among the early settlers Of the State. When
well up ia years. hc married a slave woman. the
property orCall Mcneil. Soon after marriage.
Freeman purchased his wife. paying valuable
consideration for her. In the year 1881 lac made
hi. will which was recorded in accordance with
the requirements of law, in which ho bequeathcd
g. his wife three several tracts Of land, all his
stock tools household goods and other property;
also. bcqncnthing 10 her freedom, which he had
not up o. this time been able ta secure. Three
years after this will he secured his wilc's enamel
patton according 30 law. taking her free papers,
aud giving a bond in thousand dollars that she
should never become charge npon the public.
4 man boy the name of Daniel Buell. the owner Of
his daughter Ella, the plaintiff in question. went
on his bond The same year he purchased his
Wifc's sister. Mary. for whom he gave 800.
Itappcars from the evidence thatfrom this period
aud several succeeding years. that Freeman and his
wife were exceedingly anxious to purchase Ella.
bul lial ufI oNltIs M i'h'i AiH il'A Nini w l'
with her services. lie however pledged himself,
that ia case he ever made sale Of her that they
should have the refusal. Before the desired pur-
chasc was effected Buic died. but on his death bed
had expressed the wish that Ella might be sold
o. her parents. Subsequent to the dcccase Of Mr..
Buio almost iusuperablc obstacles, 20 emancipa-
ton. were raised by the laws as the "irrcprcssi-
bic conflict had fired the public mind Of the
whole country. and the privileges of the free ne
lrroes greatly restricted. York Freeman had the
means 10 buy his daughter hut could not do so,
because the laws of the State required all negroes
that were emanciputed to be sent 10 Liberia or
some other place outside Of the State. The plain
tiH was taken 20 Nashville and sold, but was
bought by gentleman by the name Of james Il.
Ilallums, the defendant. From the evidence 1t
appears that Freeman furnished him the money
10 purchase his daughter. but that he gave his
note and retained the money. when the purchase
was made lie however took bill of sale of her
in his own name which was not unusual oc-
ruFrenco at that time. as il cccssary for some
white man 20 have the nominal title.
The plaintiff Ina this case was brought home and
deemed free hoy her parents and noighbors, not
suspccting any violation of the roposcd conf
dru,c. For ten years She was regarded and ac-
kuowlclgcd as free; going. living and doing as
shc plcnsed without the restrictions Of any one
Fnvc her parents.
During this time IL appears that Freeman OF
iptoa difficulty about selling some liquor, when
hc left home for fear ct being arrested, and went
TO a Mr.. Smithyick 5. a brother in law of the de-
PENDANT aud while there hc made deed of gift
of all his property in Davidson county. that the
law might seize. To defendant, rcserying use
during his own natural life. Itappcars that whcn
L.. al rg-i Wlth
regard 10 the disposition of the plaintiffs money.
and said that il was in the possession Of the de
PENDANT. On his death the defendant hal S3l6 in
sprric turned uycrto him for safe keeping by the
wife of the deceased
Some twelve months after the death of the
plniuiia = father her mother died, who made a
homeopathic will of her effects, with certain sums
of money, that she specified "a being held 10y the
defendant to the plaintiff and her grandmother
Aurr her death the defendant, llallums. took
possession OF all the stock, papers. Ae.. and
claimed that lac was the proper owner of all the
prnpcTTy aud effects of York Freeman, NJ ia,
same time reducing the defendant To slavery.
She was held ia slavery until the late rovolu.
tiuu. when She became free and instituted suli AZ
the Trcclmcn's Court for the moneys dep"sic"
Ly her parents ia thc hands of the defendant
also the lands and other property that her father
had o-t,u.ibly decided away, 10 prevent seizure
by the state authorities for alleged violations
that hc was said Co have committed against ih'
laws Of the same.
luaro Lawrence held in his decision, that Tho
laws of Congress. establishing the Freedmen
Court. gave IL jurisdiction over all eases between
white aud colorcd persons where the latter arr
not allowed 10y the laws of the state TO testify
and that IL had concurrent jurisdiction n case
of this kind. with the courts of the state. III
held further. that this action was not barred 10y
tb, statute OF Limitation; that tie code "i 1911
urr,rribcd that Imprisonment. was d'sao'"N
to sue: that the law did not recognize such eases
.,l that the statute had been construed as fol
laws. d" 4 person held IA slavery is IMPRISONED
,,itlip tb, meaning of the uro,so in the statute
etc. and that It was impossible for the plmnuh Il
.u, until released from the imprisonment "
l,,.r, Hence hc decided that this actl"
brought by the plaintiff was not barred by tn
.t,tut,. and adiurcd that the defendant shout
ma, damages 20 the plaintiff and her sous 10
I,lllp- th,m iu slavery. SIWhe that lac should pa
l9.L the $50 received from the plaintiff mother
with interest S5ll q; that he should pay 10
flock taken. $l5l; for furniture and costs ct in
init. 500; making an aggregate of S''No.
TN, Cont also adjudrcd that the Decd OF "a
made ly York Freeman, GA the VIA 81 Jahual!
lsi,. Was void aud Of NO effect, from tie fact tbs
If was procured through fraud. II wac all
deemed void ior want Of consideration when w
p,rcssar, 10 make .hc deed legal. " E'i"ii""'h'
Ir ,.usgayaiaiig or "liaitg" was held 10 be a COT
liberation. but ii was not pretended 10y the q"
t,uiant Ilallums. that hc was in any manner o.
lated TO the plaintiffs father, York Freeman
The Court further held that damages might
assessed for the use Of the plaintiff land Tor mo
than twenty years. but required nothing mo
tbap the immediate possession Of the land Al