Caesar v. Taylor. Trespass for detention in slavery. Plea non cul. Besides the usual proof of liberty, the plaintiff brot witnesses to prove a contract between him and defendant that he shoud be free on payment of a sum of Money and that the money was partly paid and that the Time of payment is not yet expired.

For defendant was read the province Law shewing negroes to be slaves and that they can't be manumitted without first giving bond,2 which was not done in the present Case &c.

But answerd by Plaintiff that the Province law doth not make any negroes slaves if it did it being contra. to Laws of God and reason 60must be void. And error &c. about in different matters may make jus but not in essentials as life liberty &c.

At the Superior Court November the defendant offered to give in Evidence on plea of non Cul his right to Caesar by purchase &c. The Council for Caesar objected that it cou'd not be admitted on this plea and the Court doubted. It was compared to the Cases in Trials pr pais2 and Gilbert L.E. Law of Evidence 3 where title agreements &c. are good evidence, when they don't go in discharge of trespass but in denial of plaintiffs declaration. And the Cause was contin'd. A special verdict was proposed.

Taylor v. Caesar. Trespass for enslaving the defendant. Plea non cul. Evidence offered was a bargain between Caesar and Taylor that on payment of £— he woud set the boy free and proof was of payment of considerable sum, and Taylor offered bill of sale in Evidence to which it was objected that its improper and doth not tend to support the plea and Trials per pais and Gilbert L. Evid. were produced. The Court doubted at first but since it was (I think June 1772) rejected by whole Court.

Trespass for enslaving Plaintiff; plea non cul. Plaintiff offered evidence of beating imprisoning and abusing the plaintiff by defendants 61vendees. As the defendant was the first cause of by illegal conveyance the Court unanimously admitted the proof, altho' said that it cannot appear by records.

Caesars wife offered as a witness. Objected to her as his wife and interested, and proof offered of cohabitation. Answer that there was no contract but what was dissolvable at will and said to be determined that no negro could be a bastard, but Judge Trowbridge said that proof of Cohabitation was proof of marriage, and evidence by witnesses was admitted of cohabitation for a course of years. White woman married to negro Slave not allowed to sue without naming him.2

Adams. It has been ruled in 3 cases by the Court, in Slewman, in Billings, and at Cambridge that negroes are presumed to be slaves and must make their freedom appear.3

Lowell. 4 Made difference between property in matter and moral beings.

Hut chinso n. The Evidence not admissible on the plea.

Trowbridge of the same opinion.

Oliver also, of the same opinion.

Lynde in doubt.

Cushing not in .