Inhabitants of Stockbridge v. Inhabitants of West Stockbridge

A deed more than thirty years old may be given in evidence, without proof of its execution, when found in possession of the party claiming under it, and the possession of the thing conveyed has followed the conveyance. The conveyance of a slave by the deed of an agent, authorized in writing only by the owner, was held sufficient to transfer the property in the slave. And a slave so conveyed was held to have been the slave of the purchaser, notwithstanding his determination and promise not to hold him more than ten years.

This action, the decision of which upon certain agreed facts has already been reported, (vide ante, vol. xii. p. 400,) came on again for trial upon a review granted by the Court, upon the petition of the inhabitants of Stockbridge, who were original plaintiffs, (vide ante, vol. xiii. p. 302,) before Jackson, J., at the last April term in this county.' The action was brought to recover the money expended by the plaintiffs for the support of Frank Duncan, a negro man, whose settlement they allege to be in West Stockbridge. The only question made at the last trial was, whether the said Duncan was formerly the slave of Elijah Williams, Esq., late of West Stockbridge, so as to have gained a settlement from the said Williams, as his master. The said Williams, who was deceased before the trial, had given his deposition, which was taken for the original action, and was again used on the trial by review. *He therein states that, in the year 1770, the said Duncan being a slave in New Jersey, he, the said Williams, bought the time or services cf the said slave for the term of ten years, and paid therefor the sum of £100 ; that he was from principle averse to holding a slave, but was willing to purchase his services as aforesaid, if the negro consented to it; that he supposed there was a deed or writing between him and the former owner, but had no particular recollection about it. It did not appear that he considered himself bound to restore the slave to his former master at the end of the ten years. The said Williams died in June, 1815; and in the following October, his son, looking over a large quantity of his father’s old papers, accidentally found an instrument purporting to be a bill of sale from one William Bott, of New Jersey, to the said E. Williams, of a negro slave, called Frank. The instrument, a copy of which came up in the case, bears date on the 2d of April, 1770; the consideration expressed in it is £100; and it purports to convey absolutely the whole title and interest in the said slave for his life. The plaintiffs offered this paper in evidence at the trial. The defendants objected to its going to the jury; but the judge admitted it, leaving it to the jury to be considered in connection with the said deposition, if they should believe it to relate to the purchase mentioned in the deposition. It appeared that the said bill of sale was in the hand-writing of the said Williams ; that the owner of the said slave was one Joseph Firman, of New York, of whom the said Bott had hired him; that Firman, at the request of the slave, had written a letter to Bott, requesting him to sell the slave, or to find another master for him; that Williams came there to procure a man to work at his furnace in Stockbridge, and, upon Bott’s recommendation, Frank consented to go with him, he agreeing with Frank that, if he would serve him faithfully for ten years, he would then give him his time, and would also give him a yoke of steers and ten acres of land; * saying that he did not keep slaves any longer than till they had earned what he paid for them. Williams then paid Bott £100, and Bott undertook to sell and convey the slave to him. The said Frank returned with Williams to Stockbridge, and continued in his service seven years, and paid him £30 for the other three years of the ten years before mentioned; which sum he paid out of his wages and bounty given him as a soldier in the army of the United States. The defendants objected to the admission of the said bill of sale in evidence, because its execution was not proved by the subscribing witnesses; and also because it did not a.ppear that Bott had ány right or authority to sell and convey the slave in this manner. Both these objections were overruled. Upon the foregoing facts the judge instructed the jury that, by the purchase and conveyance made as above mentioned, the said Frank became the slave of the said Williams; and that his intention or his agreement above mentioned, to give him his time at the end of ten years, upon the condition of his good behavior for that time, would make no difference in the case. A verdict being returned for the plaintiffs, the defendants moved ■ for a new trial, on account of the admission of said evidence, and of the said direction given to the jury.