Case Name: NEGRO JAMES v. DAVID CARR and CASSON BOWDELL
Court: Delaware Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: Delaware
Decision Date: 1805-05-11
Citations: 2 Del. Cas. 223
Docket Number: 
Parties: NEGRO JAMES v. DAVID CARR and CASSON BOWDELL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Delaware Cases
Volume: 2
Pages: 223–224

Head Matter:
NEGRO JAMES v. DAVID CARR and CASSON BOWDELL.
Court of Common Pleas. Kent.
May 11, 1805.
Rodney’s Notes.
Hall, Ridgely [for petitioner]. Bayard [for defendants].
Henry Oldfield. I live on the farm of James Metcalf in this county. Metcalf brought James up from his house 13 miles below Easton to my house last fall and kept him there three weeks plowing in wheat. He boarded him with me and charged me for his work. It was said James did not belong to Metcalf, but that he hired him of some person in Maryland (viz, the defendants).
Cross-examined. Metcalf bought the farm of Bayard White a year before. He has now moved into this state with his family and lives on the farm. No one lived on it but me when he brought James up. White moved off, and I moved on and continued there one year, tilled the place in partnership. . He was to find, open a cart etc. He brought his Negroes up with a view Co settle on the farm. As soon as I moved off, he came on and lives there yet. He had three men and a woman there putting whéat in and getting corn in, for which last I had to allow him for.
James Nicols. Metcalf and me went to Mr. Turner, who told him he thought by the laws of this state he could bring his servants up to help seed his wheat, and he did bring them up. Referees made a settlement between them Metcalf left all his plows etc.
Daniel Mifflin. David Carr told me he had hired James to Metcalf and did not know of his coming into this state. If he was declared free, he should try to make Metcalf pay for him.
Hall for petitioner.
Exceptions in the law only to those who come to reside or travel through. When we subject our property to another, we are liable to the consequence. If the person who hires is not amenable for bringing in for three weeks, why should he for three or thirty years, etc. And the law would be eluded. The words of the Act, “If any person or persons shall bring in,” etc., and if any person by consent of the master brings the slave in he is amenable to the law, except as is excepted. He did not come in to settle at this time.
Fisher for defendants.
No decree in favor of freedom has been yet made where the slave has been brought in by a person to whom the owner hired him.
Bayard.
Tenth section, “That nothing in this act shall be construed to extend, or affect, any person or persons who may move into this state.” The reasonable construction of this section, Mr. Bayard contends, must be in their favor, from the proof in the case.
Bidgely.
If the bringing in will, not entitle the petitioner to his freedom, the carrying out if proved will entitle him to freedom etc.

Opinion:
The Court consider in this case that the petition be dismissed. The opinion of the Court in this case is founded on the construction of the tenth section, and the facts in this case.