Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-01-22
LEGAL.

DecislOus Of the supreme Court of
Tennessee, at Nashville, December
Term, 1857.
Reported for the Union and Dispatch, by s. J.
Henderson, Attorney at Law. i.aa
The municipal law Of the State Of Tennessee
relative 20 the status Of persons held as slaves
prior 20 the recent rebellion, continued IN
force TIL the ratification Of the constitutional
amendment abolishing slavery.
MIG. GhoIson Us. o. M. BIackman.
This suit was instituted by Gholson, adj
ministrator Of Rogers, against Blackman,
before a Justice Of the Peace for the county
Of Montgomery, on the 9th Of November,
1866. The Instice before whom the cause
was tried, rendered judgment in favor of
the plaintiff for the sum of $38 33 and
costs, from which the defendant appealed
to the Circuit Court of Montgomery county,
in which trial was had, resulting in a
verdict and Judgment in favor of the de-
fendant. The plaintiff moved for a new
trial, which being overruled he has prose-
outed an appeal in error to this court
Upon the trial in the Circuit Court the
case was submitted TO the jury upon an
agreed state of facts, from which it appears
that Gholson, as the administrator Of the
estate Of A. NJ. Rogers, deceased, hired a
woman slave named Ellen to Blaekman,
for the years 1880, 1851, 1852 and 1868.
Said woman Ellen, and her son Charles,
continued in the service and employ of
Blaekman from 1858 up TO the 22d Of Feb
ruary, 1865.
The military forces of the United States
occupied the town Of Clarksville as a mill.
tary post during the year 1854, and up to
the 22d Of February. 1865, during the
whole Of which time Blackman lived with
In the lines of said post. During this
/ period great many slaves came within
the lines, aud did as they pleased so far as
their masters were concerned. No master
could control his slave. They hired
themselves 10 whom they pleased, aud 70
ceivea the hire. Many OF the citizens
of Clarksyille were compelled to hirt
these negroes or do without servants,
and Il was their common practice to hire
any negro they wanted who would consent
20 hire with them. Blackman paid Ghol'
son for hire up TO 1854, and this suit L
brought to recover the hire for the yea
1854, and up 10 the 22d Of February, 1865
AZ the frssof the year 1864, the HUSBAND
Of the woman Ellen notified Blackman thai
he must not pay Gholson any further fol
her hire. andfhat from that time the wage
must be paid to her, andaccordingly Black
man paid the woman her hire ior the year
1884 and 1855.
Gholson, the administrator, was at on
time in the Rebel army. SO also was on
Of the heirs Of the intestste Rogers, bu
there were other heirs Of the intestaie WHIT
were infants, and had no participation IL
the rebellion.
| Under this general state Of facts, Hi
Honor, the Circuit Judge, instructed tn
iury, fthe facts are that the defendan
paid the hire 10 the negro under the cir
uumstances enumerated, you will find 70
the defendant. II on the contrary, yon vii
ind for the plaintiff
We think this instruction waserroneons
There can certainly be no question bnt ths
AZ the Law stood prior TO the breaking ou
OF the recent reballion, the plaintiff wonl
have been entitled 90 recover Of the defend
ant the hire Of said slayes whilst they re
mained In his employ, without any expires
stipulation upon she part Of the defendar
10 pay the same, and il is equally clear tbs
a payment to the slave wenld not have dii
charged the liability Of the defendant o
account Of the hire. The question The
arises, have the rules OF law, BY which u
rights and liabilities OF the parties woul
, have been as stated, been changed or abr
gated, and il 80, where and how2
IL is insisted in argument that ina
mneh as Gholson, the administrator, AZ
. one Of the heirs Of the iniestate Roger
were once Ia the Rebel army, and sal
slaves wers within the town Of ClArksvil
] while il was occupied by the military fs