Evening star., 1895-01-18
SLAVE MARRIAGES DISCUSSED
How Suoh Relations Affect the Present
Ownership Of Property.
Judge Bradley Decides n Case i'm
An Interesting Legal Opinion.

Judge Bradley, In Circuit Court No. L.
today rendered q decision in the case Of
franklin Jennings against Elizabeth Webb
Of much more than usual interest. The
case was a suit in ejectment, the plaintiff
seeking to recover part of lot q, square
107, situated on L between 18th and 18th
streets.
The PARTIES to the suit were colored peo-
pie. and 1t appeared from the testimony
that in 1856 one John 8. James conveyed
the lot to Paul Jennings and his daughter,
Frances Jennings. as joint tenants. Paul
died before Frances, and it was claimed on
behalf OF the plaintiff that Frances took
the lot by survivorship, and that the plain
tiff took an undivided interest in the prop
trty as one of two brothers of Frances Jen-
nings.
Proof introduced by the plaintiff showed
that at the time Of his mothers death he
was seven years Of age; that Paul Jennings
and his mother cohabited together in Vir-
ginia, where both were slaves; that his
mother died about 1872 and that his father
was owned by President Madison. coming
to Washington as Mr. Madison's body serv-
ant While living here with President Mad
ison the plaintiffs father returned about
once a year to Virginia for few weeks
In 1855 he left Virginia and came here to
reside permanently. Shortly afterward, he
married and lived in the premises adjoining
the lot in controversy.
There was no proof In the case to snow
any actual marriage between Paul Jen-
nings and plaintiffs mother. or of any form
of marriage whatever according to amy
custom in Virginia, or with the consent or
the masters Of the couple: nor was there
any proof to show the existence of any
such custom in Virginia. The plaintiffs
attorneys claimed that an act of the Vir-
ginia legislature of 1866 validated as law
full marriages where, at any time prior
thereto slaves had cohabited as man and
wife, and legitimatiZed the issue of such
connection.
Judge Bradley held that. inasrnuch as
many years prior to the passage Of the act
the plaintiffs mother had died. and ten
years prior to the passage of the act the
plaintiffs father had left the state, the act
could not affect the status Of the parties or
property beyond the limits OF Virginia II
could only affect, said the court the status
of parties domiciled in Virginia, and that
the law of the place (where the property Is
situated) controlled as to the devolution OF
the property. The court therefore held
that the act Of 1866 had no application to
the case.
1t was claimed further by the plaintiffs
attorney that the act of Congress of 1879
which recognized as valid any marriage
between slaves in accordance with the
customs of the state in which they lVed'
and legitimated the issue of such marriage,
APPLIED to the case in question. legitimate
ing the issue of Paul Jennings.
Judge Bradley held, however. that that
act did not apply to the case under the
proofs, because the only proof In the case
was that Paul Jennings had at intervals
cohabited with the woman, and there was
no proof whatever OF any actual marriage
between the parties or according TO the
customs Of Virginia. The court In general
term, said Judge Bradley had twice de-
cided, where the act of 1879 was brought
in question, that proof of marriage, accord
ing to the customs of the state. and OF
such customs was essential to give herit-
able blood to the issue. There being no such
proof in the present case remarked Judge
VAR
for the defendant, and he so directed
Messrs Charles H. Cragin and Samuel
r. Bond represented the plaintiff. the de-
fendant being represented by Mr.. William
F. Mattingly.