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/ussccases0387 and id is 1 raw text is: DAILOR V. WILLIAMS.
Statement of the case.
NAILO1 V. WILLIAMS.
1. Where a question is asked of a witness, which is illegal only because it
may elicit improper testimony, and the court permits it to be answered
against the objection of the other party, if the witness knows nothing
of the matter to which he is interrogated, or if his answer is favorable
to the objecting party, it is not error of which a revising court can take
notice. It works him no injury.
2. If it does work the objecting party injury, he can show it by making the
answer a part of the bill of exceptions, and unless he does this there is
no error of the sort mentioned.
3. Where there is nothing in the bill of exceptions which enables a revising
court to say that questions objected to have exceeded the reasonable
license which a court, in its discretion, may allow in cross-examination,
no error is shown.
APPEAL from the Supreme Court for the District of Co-
lumbia, the case being this:
Several negroes had been convicted in Virginia of heinous
crimes and sentenced to death; but being reprieved by the
governor of Virginia, were sold by that State to two persons,
Williams and Davis, upon Williams's giving bond to trans-
port them beyond the limits of the United States. Williams
did not so transport them, but took them t6 Louisiana, and
was there indicted, convicted, and sentenced to a heavy fine,
under a statute of Louisiana, for bringing negroes- convicted
of crimes into that State. The negroes themselves, however,
were not confiscated, but were sold by Williams for a large
sum, to be thereafter received. In this state of facts, Davis
(his partner in the purchase from the State of Virginia) as-
signed, in 1847, by instrument of writing, all his interest in
the slaves to one Nailor, party to this suit, and Williams
having received the purchase-money for the slaves, Nailor
ther6upon sued him below in assumpsit to recover his share
of the proceeds, and- called two witnesses to prove the gen-
uineness of Davis's signature to the instrument of assign-
ment, and Williams's acknowledgment of the claim now set
up by Nailor.
One of them testified that the assignment was shown in
Dec. 1868.]
. 107](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ussccases0387&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)