Hannah v. Sparkes

the “aveliamedH,ane hér ‘Sand th"n livingm his fami-intuit*1 11 daughter fnSecradie,whicii u, thc-n^a gin waSe"rickmg, S jífltíghií'hai’ui'"n f<-r, owe he sons* then pn ient iieUien piv<ct/illto Ama, and deciar. po,unity,ihouid hi Anna-Heí¿tythat this parui gift was ívaJisfcrthcnrapeS ,j in u to Anna,

Appeal from Queen-Anne's County Court. This was a petition for freedom, filed by the appellants. At the tr'a' petitioners read in evidence the will of Charles Barniclow, dated the 26th of December 1SU, containing amongst other devises and bequests, the following, viz. “Seventhly. Mywill is, that my negro woman Hannah, and her child Elijah, shall be free after my death.” They then proved that the testator had been in possession of negro Hannah for upwards of 20 years before his death, and that after his death Hannah, and Elijah her son, who was then born, acted as free people, until they were taken possession of by the defendant, (now appellee;) and that the other petitioners, her children, were born whilst Hannah was so at large. The defendant then proved by N, Ireland, a competent witness, that in the year 1786 the said testator, Barniclow, intermarried with his (the witness’s) sister Eleonora; that in January 1787 they had a child named Jlnna, now the wife of the defendant; that Barniclow and his wife lived in the family of J. Ireland, the father of the witness, where he the witness also resided; that in March 1787 the child of Barniclow and wife being in the cradle, and the witness, one E. Downing, and Barniclow and wife, being in the room, then and usually occupied by Barniclow and wife, his father J. Ireland, and his mother, and one P. Trcio, came into the room; that Hannah, then a girl, was rocking the cradle, and that J. Ireland called her up and put his hand on her, and requested the witness, Trcio and Downing, to take notice that he then gave Hannah to Jlnna the child of Barniclow and wife; that he declared at the time that Hannah, and her posterity, should be the properly of Jlnna, except the first child which she might have, which child, if it lived, should be the property of his daughter Jl Ireland. That Hannah was then about seven years of age. That immediately after this ceremony, Hannah returned to rocking the cradle. That from that time Hannah continued to sleep in the room of Barniclow and wife, and to attend to the child, which was also done by another giii about the house. That Hannah, when called on, performed services for any of the family, when not engaged jn the service of Barniclow and wife, and nursing the child. That Bamiclow and wife, together with their daughter Anna, removed from J. Ireland’s about August or September of the same year, and took Hannah with them, who continued in their use and possession for many years thereafter, and that Jlnna lived with her parents until she was two years of age, and then went to live with' her grand mother, Hannah continuing to live with Barni-clow and wife. That after the death of Mrs. Bamiclow, the grand-mother and child went to live with Bamiclow, and continued to reside with him for one year, when they removed, leaving Hannah still in the possession of Barni-clow. The defendant then proved by H. Holding, that in the year 1792, J. Ireland was at Bamiclow’s house on a visit, that the witness, and one Allen, were called into the house, and that Ireland then said he had given Hannah to his grand daughter Anna before, and to make the thing firm, as they were young, said, now take notice Holding, if any claim should come against Bamiclow, that Hannah is not Barniclow’s property, but the property of his daughter, striking the witness on the back with a whip, and saying, now take notice you rernerr ber this in a coming day. The petitioners then proved by Mary Chairs, that about 26 years ago her husband, J. Start, now dead, called on J. Ireland for payment of a debt, that Ireland said he had not the money, and did not know that he ever should have it; that Starl told him he had no right to givo away his property to Bamiclow, when he owed money to his creditors; that Ireland replied he had not done so; that he had let Bamiclow have Hannah for a debt he owed him. The defendant then proved by N. Ireland, that Bamiclow in 1809 came to his house on his way to a camp meeting, and told him he intended to manumit Hannah and her children, to which the witness replied she is none of yours, and you cannot do it; that Bamiclow then flew in a violent passion, and said he would do as he pleased for he had raised the negroes. The witness said, that he the witness never did claim those negroes as his own. Tfe delendant proved by another witness that Bamiclow, some years ago, on being asked why he did not sell one of his negroes, to raise money to pay the sheriff who was then present, and who had a demand against him, replied that the negroes were none of his, but belonged to his daughter. He also proved by another witness, that Bar-niclow, before the marriage of his daughter, said that Hannah was not his property, but the property of his daughter. The petitioners then proved, that the petitioner Hannah remained in the possession of Bamiclow until his death, and that his daughter Anna had not lived with him for 15 years before his death. That she intermarried with P. Potts in 1807, who died in 1811, when she intermarried with the defendant in 1813. That the petitioners were at large acting as free persons from the death of Bamiclow until March 1816, when they were taken possession of by the defendant. The parties, in the examination of the witnesses, did not enter generally into the declarations of J. Ireland and Barnic/nw, but confined them to the particular periods mentioned by the witnesses. The petitioners then prayed the court to direct the jury, that if they believed N. Ireland's testimony to be ¡rue, that the gift as proved by him, was not sufficient in lav.' to transfer the property to the defendant’s wife. This direction the Court, [Bark, Ch. J.] refused to give. The petitioners excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against them, they appealed to this court, The cause was argued before Buchanan, Johnson, Martin and Dorsey, J. by