Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1867-02-01

ton for them nor any other interest, ex-
cept gain from their services. Now if these
persons OF their friends had been present
when the application was made for their
binding, would any Court in the State have
bound them out OF course not. It would
have been gross Outrage if they had. A
Court ought not to and will not bind out
an orphan unless it appear that its condi-
ton will be improved. 1t is q high duty
| of the Court, and one which they perform
with pleasure, to protect these helpless chill
dren and not only prevent oppression and
| fraud but to act as q friend and guarding
and improve their condition. remember
thatwhen l was at the Bar, the County Court
of Granville had ordered sundry orphans
to be brought to Court to be bound out
Among them were three or four who were
neat and clean, and their mother was with
them, and cried much, but said not word
Upon enquiring it was found that she was
an honest industrious woman and widow
who had labored hard for her children
and just when they could begin to help her
the rapacity of some bad man sought to
take them away.
Some gentleman Of the Bar suggested
that instead of taking away her children
there should be q contribution to enable
her to keep them, and it was readily res
pended to by the Court and the Bar and
the crowd, and a handsome sum was given
| to her and she kept her children There
is shown the propriety of having the per
sons actually present in Court, III order
! that the Court may see their con
dition, the condition of their parents
or friends, who have charge of them
and to hear their own simple story, and if
binding be necessary, to see their capacity
and fitness for one employment and anoth-
er, and also to give publicity to the matter,
so as to invite applicants, in order that the
Court may select the best masters.
In the case before us it is manifest from
the statement of the case sent us, that the
humane and intelligent Judge who heard
the cause, would never have remanded the
! petitioners to the custody of the defendant,
if lie had supposed that he had the right
| to look behind the order of bindiDg-nOt
SO much perhaps for any fault in the do
| PENDANT, as because there was no proprietv
Ill taking them from the society and servl-
ces Of thei" parents and friends, to bind
| them to any person.
| There was an interesting discussion at the
bar rs to the class with which the petitioners
were to be put, suppOsing that they were liza
| bletO be bound out at all. Our statute, Rev.
Code, chap. 8, sec. |, passed before the
war, provides that s. It shall be the duty Of
| VIC OCFCAtl N@OuLtS VI j ltdS anu (OtliIIGI
! Sessions to bind out as apprentices, all or
Iphans whose estates are of so small value
that no person will educate and maintain
| them, for the profits thereof" And after
Icnumerating other classes, the statute pro
ceeds: "Also the children of free negros.
where the parents with whom such children
may live, do not habitually employ their
time in some honest, industrious occupa-
ton, and ali free base born children OF
color"
But it is not necessary, and therefore it
would be improper for us to enter into the
consideration of those questions, because,
whether they belong to one class or anoth-
er they were entitled to notice before they
could be bound cut, and as they had no
notice and were not present, the bindin G
was void, and therefore, they are entiU eC
to their discharge and to go wheresoryv cl
they will.
(siGned.) READ, !.