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/ssactsengr1022 and id is 1 raw text is: PITT V. HARBIN
Trinity Term, June 22, 1772.
Lord Mansfield.-On the part of Somerset, the case which we gave notice should
be decided this day, the Court now proceeds to give its opinion. I shall recite the
return to the writ of habeas corpus, as the ground of our determination; omitting
only words of form. The captain of the ship on board of which the negro was taken,
makes his return to the writ in terms signifying that there have been, and still are,
slaves to a great number in Africa; and that the trade in them is authorized by the
laws and opinions of Virginia and Jamaica; that they are goods and chattels; and,
as such, saleable and sold. That James Somerset, is a negro of Africa, and long
before the return of the King's writ was brought to be sold, and was sold to Charles
Stewart, Esq. then in Jamaica, and has not been manumitted since; that Mr. Stewart,
having occasion to transact business, came over hither, with an intention to return ;
and brought Somerset, to attend and abide with him, and to carry him back as soon
as the business should be transacted. That such intention has been, and still con-
tinues; and that the negro did remain till the time of his departure, in the service of
his master Mr. Stewart, and quitted it without his consent; and thereupon, before
the return of the King's writ, the said Charles Stewart did commit the slave on board
the Ann and Mary, to save custody, to be kept till he should set sail, and then to be
taken with him to Jamaica, and there sold as a slave. And this is the cause why he,
Captain Knowles, who was then and now is, commander of the above vessel, then and
now lying in the river of [19] Thames, did the said negro, committed to his custody,
detain; and on which he now renders him to the orders of the -Court. We pay all
due attention to the opinion of Sir Philip Yorke, and Lord Chief Justice Talbot,
whereby they pledged themselves to the British planters, for all the legal conse-
quences of slaves coming over to this kingdom or being baptized, recognized by Lord
Hardwicke, sitting as Chancellor on the 19th of October 1749, that trover would lie:
that a notion had prevailed, if a negro came over, or became a Christian, he was
emancipated, but no ground in law; that he and Lord Talbot, when Attorney and
Solicitor-General, were of opinion, that no such claim for freedom was valid; that
tho' the Statute of Tenures had abolished villains regardant to a manor, yet he did
not conceive but that a man might still become a villain in gross, by confessing him-
self such in open Court. We are so well agreed, that we think there is no occasion
of having it argued (as I intimated an intention at first,) before all the Judges, as is
usual, for obvious reasons, on a return to a habeas corpus; the only question before
us is, whether the cause on the return is sufficient? If it is, the negro must be
remanded; if it is not, he must be discharged. Accordingly, the return states, that
the slave departed and refused to serve; whereupon he was kept, to be sold abroad.
So high an act of dominion must be recognized by the law of the country where it is
used. The power of a master over his slave has been extremely different, in different
countries. The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being
introduced on any reasons, moral or political ; but only positive law, which preserves
its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself from whence it was created,
is erased from memory: it's so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but
positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I
cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore
the black must be discharged.
PiTT against HARBin.
Mrs. Harbin devised to her four nieces, and on the death of any of them without
issue, the whole should go to the survivor or survivors; but if any of her said nieces
died, having child or children, then the share to go to such child or children; if all
died without issue, then the whole to her nephew.
Catherine Pitt, one of the nieces, married G. Pitt, and had issue W. and G. Both
died in the life of the mother; G. Pitt left issue Eliz. and G. grand-children of C. the
three other nieces died without issue, one in 1712, C. in 1745, and another in 1759,
and F. in 1765. The will was made in 1705.
[20] On the death of F. the grand-children of C. claim the whole. On the other
hand, the representatives of Mrs. Harbin say, that nothing but the single share which
C. took by survivorship goes to the grand-children of C.
LOFF, 19.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr1022&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)