Case Name: Negro Harry vs. Lyles
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1798-10
Citations: 4 H. & McH. 215
Docket Number: 
Parties: Negro Harry vs. Lyles.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maryland reports, being a series of the most important law cases argued and determined in the Provincial Court and Court of Appeals of the then province of Maryland, from the year 1700 [i.e. 1658] down to the [end of 1799]
Volume: 4
Pages: 215–217

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
OCTOBER TERM, 1798.
Negro Harry vs. Lyles.
Appear from Prince George’s county court, dismissing the appellant’s petition for freedom.
At the trial in the county court the following bills of exceptions were taken:
1. The petitioner offered evidence to the jury to prove, that in 1790 he was brought into the state of Maryland by the defendant, from the commonwealth of Virginia. To rebut this evidence, the defendant offered evidence to the jury to prove, that he the defendant, being a citizen of Virginia, did in the year 1790 remove into the state of Maryland into Prince George’s county, with a bona fule intention of settling therein; that he hath ever since until this time actually resided in the said state of Maryland; that at the time of his removal into Maryland,, in manner aforesaid, to wit, in 1790, he brought with him the petitioner, together with others, his proper slaves, from Virginia', that the petitioner before and at the time of Ms removal from Virginia in. manner aforesaid, was the slave of the defendant, and that the petitioner had resided in Virginia for three whole years antecedent to his being re moved and brought into Maryland in manlier aforesaid* The defendant also offered evidence to the jury to prove. that upon his removal into Maryland in manner aforesaid, to wit, in 1790, he the said defendant, hy his own oath, fully proved to the satisfaction of the collector Of the taS for Prince George’s county, that the said petitioner had been an inhabitant of some one Of the United States, to wit, of Virginia, for the space of three whole years next preceding his importation into Maryland in manner aforesaid. And it was admitted by the counsel for the defendant, that he the defendant did not reside in Maryland for one year antecedent to his importing the petitioner into Maryland in manner aforesaid.
Whereupon the petitioner} hy his counsel} prayed the opinion of the court} and their -direction to the jury, that the residence of the defendant in Maryland for one whole .year next succeeding his importation of the petitioner into the said state, is not a sufficient compliance with the proviso contained in'the first clause of the act of assembly of 1783, entitled, “An act to prohibit the bringing of slaves into this slalef’ and that for want of the residence of the defendant for one year prior to the importation aforesaid, the petitioner did cease to be a slave, and became free; and that therefore the petitioner is free, and that a verdict ought to be found for him. Which direction the court [Slone, Ch. J.] refused to give; but was of opinion, and did so direct the jury, that it was not necessary for the defendant to have resided one year in the state of Maryland antecedent to his importing the petitioner into the state of Maryland, in order to bring him the defendant within the said proviso of the act of assembly aforesaid. The petitioner by his counsel excepted, &c.
. 2. The defendant having produced and sworn Robert Bowie to give evidence in this cause, put into his hands, to refresh his memory, a paper written and signed hy the said Bowie, in the words . following, to wit: “Tins day “ came William, Lyles, before me, Robert Bowie, one of “ the collectors of the tax for the state of Maryland, and made oath on the Holy Evangely of Almighty God, • “ that he the said Lyles is about to remove from the state of “ Virginia, and to become a resident of the State of Ma- “ ryland, for at least one year; and that the said Lyles “ did not bring or mean to bring with him any slave or “ slaves, Other than was conformable to the act-of asseni- “ bly made to prevent the further importation of slaves “into this state; and in every respect fully complied with “ the said act. Given, under my hand this 6th day of “April 1790. “ Robert Bowie.”
It being admitted that the said Robert Bowie, on the day on which the said certificate bears date, ar.d at the time of the importation of the said petitioner, was colléctor of the tax for Prince George’s county, had that the "defendant removed the petitioner from Virginia into the said county of Prince George’s in Maryland.
The defendant then offered to prove by the said Bowie, that the defendant'did, upon the day'on which the said certificate bears date, fully prove by his own oath, to the satisfaction of the said Bowie, that the petitioner had been an inhabitant of some one of the United States; to wit; of the commonwealth of Virginia, for the space of three whole years next pi’eceding the importation of the raid petitioner into the state of Maryland by the defendant The petitioner, by Ms counsel, then produced and read to the court the said certificate, and objected to the offering the oral evidence of the said Bowie for the purpose aforesaid; and prayed the court that the said evidence might not be admitted to go to tlie jury.
But the Court [Bione, Gk. X] overruled the said objection, and did admit the said Bowie to be examined to prove the facts above stated.- — The petitioner by Ms counsel excepted, &c.
The verdict and judgment being for the defendant, the petitioner appealed to this court.
Iñlhj, for appellant ,
Key, Mason and Shaajf, for appellee. .

Opinion:
The sensual couivr affirmed the judgment, of the County Court; and the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals; where the judgment of affirmance was affirmed at June term 1800.
See Negro Plato vs. Bainbridge, October 1799.