Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1879-12-30
A E L OF SLAVERY.
Suit by an Ex-Slave Woman Against the
Estate Of her Owner and Father for
ServiCes.--lnterestlng Points
of Law.

WASHINGTON, December 24.-A
case involving some novel points of
law has Just been submitted in.brief
in the Supreme Court. 1t comes on
a writ of error from the Circuit Court
Of the Eastern district Of Arkansas.
In November, 1873, there died in
Chicot county, in that State, one
Elisha Worthington, who had been
before the war a rich slaveholding
planter, whose wealth was estimated
at 100000. A short time after his
death suit was brought by Martha w.
Mason, a colOred woman, to recover
the sum Of $780, 900 from the admin
istrators Of Worthington's estate for
services alleged to have been rendered
said Worthington for managing his
household affairs for thirteen years.
THE PLAINTIFFS CASE.
The plaintiff in her charge set forth
that she was the natural daughter of
Worthington, her mother having been
a slave on one of his plantations that
her father, having no family of his
own, treated her as if she had been his
lawful child. and intrusted her almost
exclusively with the charge of his
business matters; that in 1859 he
placed her at Oberlin College, Ohio,
to be educated; that after remaining
there several years she returned vol
UNFAIRLY to said Worthington, with
whom she continued to remain until
his death; hat for all this service
Worthington had on many occasions
promised to reward her handsomely in
his will, even to the extent o fleaving
her two entire plantations, valued at
that time as high as $25O 1000, but he
died suddenly before carrying out his
plans, and hence suit was brought
through her counsel, General Albert
Eike, to recover the amount named
the estate.
THE JUDGES CHARGE.
When the case came to trial in Ar
thejudge charged the jury that
when Colonel Worthington voluntari
y took the plaintiff into the State of
Ohio and placed her there at school
he constitution and laws of the State
Immediately dissolved the relation of
Master and slave previously existing
between Colonel Worthington and the
plaintiff, and the plaintiff became a
rec woman, and could never thereaf-
er be claimed or held by Colonel
.orthington as his slave in virtue of
lis previous ownership of her. Nor
lid the subsequent return of the
,laintif from Ohio to Arkansas affect
Ter rights as a free woman acquired
the laws Of Ohio.
THE VERDICT AND APPEAL.
The jury brought in a verdict of
$4,000 for the plaintiff. Senator Gar
and, Of Arkansas, who defended the
nit and now appears as counsel for
,laintif in error, excepted to the jury
In his brief he denies all
material allegations of Martha Mason
S to any contract or agreement or
litigation OF said Worthingt0n to pay
Ter any sum of money for so-called
e%rvices, and contends that her manu-
could only date from the re
zeal abrOgation of the law of the
Itate recognizing slavery wherein she
vas resident at the time and that
the law of slavery existing in
Arkansas no right of family heirship,
Connection, descent or distribution
.ould exist, and any subsequent manu-.
or emancipation under any
aw could not confer upon any such
light, The Senator says, in conclud-
ng his brief:
Giving a slave a complete and thor
ugh education, embracing music and
and dancing, did not free the
lave, under the Arkansas law, and
hat the law Of emancipation had to
pursued.
The case is likely to provoke much
omment aud discussion.
Great News.
II is great news indeed that there is AZ