Case Name: Guardian of Stephen and Benjamin v. Coleman
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1803-04
Citations: 1 Brev. 232
Docket Number: 
Parties: Guardian of Stephen and Benjamin v. Coleman.
Judges: [Brevard J,, had been retained in the cause while at the bar, and there,fore gave no opinion,]
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 232–233

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT,
COLUMBIA,
APRIL, 1803.
Guardian of Stephen and Benjamin v. Coleman.
Exemplification's of judgments'recovered in other states, though slovenly „■ if believed to be authentic, arc entitled to credit-, and to have the effect of fair records.
Where the identity of the person of the plaintiff, claiming liis freedom, is' the point in question, the evidence of what the witness has heard in conversation in the family of the defendant, who claims plaintiff as a-slave, is admissible evidence.
Two cases turning on similar points ; being actions for ravishment' of ward, tried in Kershaw district, before Johnson, J. Verdie.'s for plaintiffs.^Motion fora new trial o'n several grounds. One exception was to the insufficiency of the evidence which went to establish the identity of the plaintiff’s ward, so as to give him the benefit of the evidence of a recovery of freedom in Virginia. Defendant’s brother was produced, who proved that in conversations in defendant’s family it was spoken of as a fact certain, and well known.This evidence it was objected, ought not to have gone to the jury, being hearsay o-nly. Sed non allocatur. Another exception was to the exemplified copy of the record from Virginia, which was certified by the clerk of the general court at Richmond, by which it appeared, that actions were brought for these wards in the court at Petersburg. A trial at the bar in the general court at Richmond having been ordered, a certiorari was issued from that court to the court at Petersburg, whereupon the proceedings were certified. The plaintiffs then, (the wards of the plaintiff here) recovered their freedom. The whole proceedings were certified by the clerk of the general court, whereas it was contended,that the proceedings of the court at Petersburg should have been exemplied by the clerk of that court. Other exceptions were taken to the record on account of its suspicious appearance, being on two sheets of paper, different in quality and size ; but the hand writing was the same, and the whole record was congruous, and sufficiently full. The clerk "however, states, in his certificate, that the depositions and other papers in the cause, which would form no part, of the record in case of appeal in Vijgiuia, is not set forth. In reference to this, it was urged that- the whole record was not exemplified; and 7 T. R. 523-, was cited, where it is said, that although-sentences of foreign tribunals are presumed to be just, yet if from reasons stated a> die grounds of the decision they appear to be unjust, pr the premises given do not warrant the conclusion drawn, they may be examined, and disregarded. So here, as it appears from what is certified, that something remains uncertified,. the court should reject what is sent, and insist upon a view of the whole record, and not receive a part only. The record produced speaks of the plaintiffs as indians ; and the wards of. plaintiffs here are negroes. A variance on the record cannot be reconciled by parol evidence. Sintzenick v. Lucas. , I Esp, Rep. 43.
On the part of the plaintiffs, it was said, that the court at Peters,, burg is' a court like to a court of nisiprius ; and that judgments are always entered up in the general court, where the record is returned. That the record is conclusive evidence under the federal constitution and act of Congress, and cannot be overhauled here, and its merits enquired into, ^ That the exemplification is not a copy of a copy, but an authentic copy from the original, certified by the keeper of such original record, and( ought not to be questioned. The whole record appears to be certified. The depositions read in. the cause are no part of the record. ■ .. ..
.Falconer for the motion. Blanding contra.

Opinion:
The Court,
Wattes, Bay, and Trezevant, Justices,
[Brevard J,, had been retained in the cause while at the bar, and there,fore gave no opinion,]
refused the motion. 1st, Because although the exemplification was slovenly, and liable to some suspicion, yet it appeared to, be authentic, and was sufficiently full. 2d. Because although the question of identity might very properly have been made at the trial, yet it was a question for the jury to decide and there was evidence which might authorize their decision.