Case Name: THE STATE v. M'DONALD AND ARMSTRONG
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1795-05
Citations: 1 N.J.L. 382
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE STATE v. M’DONALD AND ARMSTRONG.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 382–385

Head Matter:
THE STATE v. M’DONALD AND ARMSTRONG.
1. A promise was made that a negro should have her freedom at a certain period. The negro remained free during ten years from the time fixed, with the acquiescence of the person claiming her; this is sufficient to prove her entitled to her freedom.
2. The court are not restricted from hearing evidence under special circumstances which would not be admissible before a jury.
3. The liability of witness to a future action is no objection to his competency.
Sur habeas corpus to bring up the body of negro Phillis.
M’Donald claimed the negro as his slave — Armstrong disclaimed, &c.
The case, on the evidence of James Linn, Esq., appeared to be as follows :
That, in 1776, Sarah Linn, the mother of witness', purchased the negro from the executors of her husband. After this, Mrs. Linn. frequently told witness that Phillis should serve no one but herself, and that after her death, the negro should be free. In 1783, Mr. Hanna addressed witness’ mother, and afterwards married her; but, previous to the marriage, witness heard his mother tell Hanna of her intentions with regard to Phillis, that she should be free. In 1785, Mrs. Hanna died. The negro then left Hanna’s house, and went to live with Mrs. Armstrong, a daughte.r of Mrs. Hanna, at whose house, and at the house of one Pearson, in Morris county, she worked as a free woman, until about two years since, when she quitted Pearson’s, and has since worked at different [333] places for herself, until last February, when she was seized by M’Donald, under a bill of sale from Hanna, conveying all his right to her. During the period between 1785 and 1795, it appeared that Phillis had married a free negro, and had three children by him.
The witness further offered to prove that after the death of his mother, his sister, Mrs. Armstrong, now also deceased, informed him that his mother, on her death-bed, among other orders, liad told her that Phillis should be free, and directed Mrs. Armstrong to take care of and provide for her.
This testimony was objected to by Frelinghuysen, for defendant — 1st. Because hearsay at second hand. 2d. Because the wife could not, after marriage, devise away or alter the property of her husband without his consent.
Woodruff, for negro, cited 2 Esp. Dig. 786.

Opinion:
Ktysey, C. J.,
said the rule of law was that such evidence was to be received by the court as might reasonably be calculated to bring out the truth. Hearsay is, in some cases, admissible testimony, and I do not see how the disclosure of Mrs. Armstrong is to be had, unless in this manner; she was not interested at the time, and is now deceased.
His Honor said it was analogous to the case where what the tenant had told another respecting his being in possession is admitted, and cited Doe v. Williams, Coup, 621.
Smith, J.,
said that the evidence was admissible. Whether, according to the strict rules of law, it is proper testimony to go to a jury is certainly questionable; but, sitting here as a judge, I have no objection to hear it. Another reason that weighs with me is, that the negro had not the means of perpetuating the testimony.