HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0551 and id is 1 raw text is: 518 ALFRED V. MARQUIS OF FITZJAMES 3 ESP. 3.
stronger ; for then part of the property, of which the defendant possessed himself,
[3] belonged to the children : but even had their father died insolvent, it would not
alter his opinion. The defendant, on his marriage, had no right to take possession
of the house and business: he had thereby confounded all the boundaries of the
property, and placed himself in a state of responsibility. He therefore directed the
jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff ; which they did.
Erskine and Lawes for the plaintiff.
Gibbs and Espinasse for the defendant.
ALFRED V. MARQUIS OF FITZJAMES.
(A servant who comes over from the West Indies, where he has been a slave, and who
continues in the service of his master in England, without any agreement for
wages, is not entitled to any, unless there has been an express promise.)
Assumpsit for servant's wages.
Plea, non assumpsit.
The plaintiff proved his employment as a servant in the family of the defendant,
and relied on a quantum reruit for the time he had served.
It appeared in evidence, that the plaintiff came over from Martinique with the
Duchess of Fitzjames, then Mademoiselle Le Brun. His father and mother had
been slaves on an estate belonging to her in that island. He had entered into her
service in Martinique, and continued to serve her after her marriage ; and the Duke
found him with necessaries of every description. There was no contract for any
hiring for wages ; but a witness said, that the Marquis had been heard to promise
to pay him wages.
[4] Lord Kenyon asked Mr. Erskine, counsel for the defendant, if he objected
to the demand in toto.
Mr. Erskine said, he did ; that the contract was not a contract for any wages iu
Martinique ; and had so continued in this country without any variation.
Lord Kenyon said, he was prepared to give a decided opinion : That up to the
time of the promise to pay wages, which the witness had said the defendant had made,
the plaintiff had no title to recover, as there was no original contract of service for
wages.
Garrow and Lawes for the plaintiff.
Erskine for the defendant.
MOISES v. THORNTON, M.D.
(To prove a party a Doctor of Physic, pursuant to an averment in pleading to that
effect, it is not of itself sufficient evidence to produce a diploma, under the seal
of the university of St. Andrew, in Scotland.)
[Subsequent proceedings, 8 T. R. 303.]
This was an action for slanderous words.
The declaration stated, That the plaintiff was a physician, and had duly taken
the degree of a Doctor of Physic ; and then averred, that the defendant speaking
of him as a physician, used these false and slanderous words: He is a Quack,
and never had a diploma : if he produces one, it is a forgery.
In support of the averment in the declaration, that the plaintiff was a physician,
and had duly taken the degree of Doctor of Physic, the plaintiff's counsel pro-
ceeded in evidence a diploma from the university of St. Andrew, in Scotland, under
a seal, which was stated to be the seal of that university.
[5] To establish the validity of this instrument, the attorney for the plaintiff
was called. He proved that he had gone into Scotland for the purplose : he had been
present at a corporate meeting of the members of the university, the rector and
professors ; they acknowledged to him, that the signatures signed to the diploma
produced, were their respective hand's-writing, and that it had been granted in full
senate. He further proved, that each professor signed a certificate in his presence
(agreeing with their hand's-writing signed to the diploma) and which certificate was
produced. But he admitted that he had no previous acquaintance with the uni-
versity, its constitution, or mode of conferring degrees, or any knowledge of the
professors, except as he had given in his evidence in chief.
Lord Kenyon expressed a doubt, whether this evidence was sufficient to support
the allegation in the declaration.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0551&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)