|
|
|
|
| LEADER |
00000nam a2200000Mi 4500 |
| 001 |
on1391999274 |
| 003 |
OCoLC |
| 005 |
20240909213021.0 |
| 006 |
m o d |
| 007 |
cr ||||||||a|| |
| 008 |
230622s1838 ncu o 000 d eng d |
| 040 |
|
|
|a UKAMD
|b eng
|e rda
|c UKAMD
|d OCLCO
|
| 035 |
|
|
|a (OCoLC)1391999274
|
| 049 |
|
|
|a HCDD
|
| 245 |
0 |
0 |
|a North Carolina, Supreme Court, Raleigh :
|b Sampson v Burgwin, June 1838 [printed].
|
| 264 |
|
0 |
|a Raleigh, North Carolina :
|b North Carolina Supreme Court,
|c 1838.
|
| 300 |
|
|
|a 1 online resource.
|
| 336 |
|
|
|a text
|2 rdacontent
|
| 337 |
|
|
|a computer
|2 rdamedia
|
| 338 |
|
|
|a online resource
|2 rdacarrier
|
| 490 |
1 |
|
|a Slavery, abolition & social justice
|
| 520 |
|
|
|a It was alleged by Caroline in trying to assert her freedom that there had been a county court order in New Hanover procured by George Burgwin in November 1809 freeing both her mother, Marian, and Caroline, then an infant aged two. The clerk of the court had no recollection of ever seeing a written petition to this effect. The defence brought as evidence (given by the sheriff of New Hanover county) that in 1820 Caroline was sold to John R London who took her to his residence in Wilmington. Another witness was brought to give evidence of a being a security to the defendant for a hire agreement in 1833 at the request of Caroline's mother. Trespass against earlier emancipation of slave. Had the original emancipation been carried out as stipulated by the laws of the State? Suit was brought to invalidate the emancipation of a slave, because, being but two years old when liberated and being freed along with her mother, she could not have performed meritorious services. The Supreme Court held that the act of liberation was that of a court of conclusive jurisdiction, and could not be impeached by evidence that she had not and could not perform such services. It also decided that a petition of an owner to free slaves need not be in writing, and that in an action by a negro to try his right to freedom if evidence of his being reputed to be a freeman is offered it is admissible to show in reply acts of ownership inconsistent with reputation. The Supreme Court overturned the verdict against Caroline in the lower court and called for a new trial.
|
| 535 |
1 |
|
|a North Carolina State Archives
|
| 542 |
|
|
|f Material sourced from the North Carolina State Archives
|
| 650 |
|
7 |
|a Enslaved children
|2 fast
|
| 650 |
|
7 |
|a Court records
|2 fast
|
| 650 |
|
7 |
|a Sheriffs
|2 fast
|
| 650 |
|
7 |
|a Slave trade
|2 fast
|
| 650 |
|
7 |
|a Enslaved persons
|x Emancipation
|2 fast
|
| 650 |
|
7 |
|a Enslaved persons
|x Social conditions
|2 fast
|
| 651 |
|
7 |
|a North Carolina
|z New Hanover County
|2 fast
|
| 710 |
2 |
|
|a Adam Matthew Digital (Firm),
|e digitiser.
|
| 710 |
1 |
|
|a North Carolina.
|b Division of Archives and History,
|e owner.
|
| 830 |
|
0 |
|a Slavery, abolition & social justice.
|
| 856 |
4 |
0 |
|u https://holycross.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=cas&url=https://www.slavery.amdigital.co.uk/documents/detail/north-carolina-supreme-court-raleigh-sampson-v-burgwin-june-1838/17609222
|y Click for online access
|
| 903 |
|
|
|a AMD-SLAVERYABOLITIONJUSTICE
|
| 994 |
|
|
|a 92
|b HCD
|