Interrogatory 7^th

When did the Defendant Malvina Huffman and Oliver S. Bemiss remove from Natchez, what relation did they then or since bear to each other, and what knowledge had the said Malvina of the possession and claim of the complainant to said property state fully all you may know on the subject

Interrogatory 8^th

Please state all else that you may know material to the rights of the Complainant and particularly whether or not you ever served or delivered a copy of the Subpoena in this case, hereto attached marked (W.S) upon the defendants or either of them, if upon either which one in what manner when and where

Sanders & Haggin, for Complt.

And on the 4^th day of November 1848, the following Cross Interrogatories, to accompany the foregoing Interrogatories, were filed in this cause to wit:

State of Mississippi

Southern District Chancery Court December Term 1848

Malvina Huffman & al Crop Interrogatories, to be propounded

??? [not vs] to Samuel R. Hammett a Witness

Fanny Leiper of Complainant

1. If you answer that you are acquainted with the Complainant please State the Degree of intimacy of such acquaintanceship? What is the age so nearly as you can tell of Complainant? Who is or was her motherand is not her mother a black or yellow woman living in Natchez, of the name of [blank] Leiper and is not said [blank] Leiper also the mother of Bob and Andy Leiper, colored men of Natchez?
2. If you answer that complainant has any settled place of residence, state how you know such fact? When did she leave Natchez, with whom and under what circumstances? What is or has been her business or occupation if anyand is she not or has she not been a “common town Woman”? What was her mode of life in Natchezwhat means of livelihood, if any of a visible kind had sheand had she any beyond what her course of life yielded her?
3. Are you acquainted with one Gustavas? Howard, and if so what connection or relation exists between him and Complainant? When did such connection or relation commence and under what circumstances?
4. If you answer that you are acquainted with the premises in controversy state whether they have not lessened in value by the caving in of the Bank or Bluff, on which they are situated? Whether by reason of their bad neighborhood or from any other reason, they are not very ineligible, either for rent; or as a residence? What means if any have you of knowing the reasonable value of the use and occupation of said premises? And do you mean by such value what the premises in question have rented for, or what you might consider them worth intrinsically to the occupant? State fully
5. If you state that Complainant was ever in possession of the premises in controversy, describe when, under whom and under what circumstances said possession commenced? Did not Complainant go into possession of said premises by the permission and sufferance of Joseph Winscott, one of the defendants in this Suit?
6. Has James Walsh any interest in this suit, except as agent merely of the other defendants; or some of them? Had said Walsh anything to do with obtaining possession of said property. Had he anything to do with said property until Malvina Huffman or other of the defendants; was in peaceable possession of the same? And has he had anything to do with it except as agent, to take care of it and rent it if practicable?
7. If you answer the 5^th? Direct interrogatory in the affirmative state whether such ‘facts’ or ‘circumstances’ consisted of acts done, and if so, by whom, where, and when, in presence of whom and at whose instance and instigation? Or if they consisted of conversations, with and by whom were such conversations held, where and when, in whose presence and for what purpose and in what manner, did you become acquainted with them? State whether you have any personal individual knowledge of the subject matter of said 5^th direct interrogatory or whether you derive your information if you have any from others or from hearsay? State fully
8. Do you know the parentage of Complainant; and if so who was her father, and who her Mother? Was not her Mother a slave called [blank] Leiper? Can you state of your own Knowledge whether Complainant is either ‘bond’ or ‘free’? Whence do you derive your information, as to her being a slave or freefrom hearsay or from factsand if the latter from what facts? Or from papers, and if so what papers, and where are they to be found and in whose possession?
9. In answering 6^th direct interrogatory, if you can answer it at all, state what are your means or sources of knowing whether the Defendant James Walsh had any reason to suppose that either Complainant was anything but a slave or that she pretended to lay any claim for herself, to the premises in dispute?
10. If in answering 8^th direct interrogatory you can say that Malvina Huffman had any knowledge of the ‘claim’ of Complainant to the premises in controversy, state fully and minutely when if at all such knowledge commenced of what it consisted, from whom derived, whether hearsay or matter of fact? State fully.
11. If you know anything further that may be material and of benefit to defendant or any one of them in the premises please State it as fully and minutely under this general interrogatory as if thereunto specially interrogated

Davis & Cox

?? for Defendants

This is an excerpt from Samuel R. Hammett’s deposition in suit:

1. First Interrogatory Answer

I am acquainted with the parties to the above entitled suit I have known the plaintiff some nine yearsI have known all the Defendants about some nine years

2. Second Interrogatory Answer

The Complainant Fanny Leiper resides now in Cincinnatti in the State of Ohio, and she has resided there during the last two or three years

3. Third Interrogatory Answer

I am acquainted with the Lot and property in controversy in this suitI have known said property and Lot some nine years it was in Fanny Leiper’s possession thenand said Fanny Leiper has had possession of it except for the last year past; At the time when I collected the rent of said property in the year 1846, eight dollars per month was paid rent for the use and occupation of said property, and I should judge that the reasonable value of the use and occupation of said property was eight dollars per month, or 96 Ninety-Six dollars per annum.

4. Fourth Interrogatory Answer

In the latter part of the year A.D. 1846, Oliver S. Bemiss came to me and stated, that he had bought the property in question for Malvina Huffman, and that she had sent for the keys and I gave them ?? to the colored girl who came to me from Malvina Huffman-aid Bemiss said to me at the time aforesaid, that he had bought the property in question for $100, or $125, from Joseph Winscott, in New Orleans

5. Fifth Interrogatory Answer

Said Bemiss told me that at the instance of said Malvina Huffman, that he, Bemiss had gone down to New Orleans to buy said property in questionTo the best of my knowledge I have no hesitation in saying that said Fanny Leiper had kept said Joseph Winscott for a length of time, and that Malvina Huffman knew that fact:

5. Fifth Interrogatory Answer [numbering mistake of court]

The Complainant is a mulattoshe appears at first to be of pretty near white blood, but when you come to converse with her you discover the contraryI have always understood that she was free, I know her brother, and I always looked upon him as freeA planter named Miller out back of Washington was their reputed father

6. Sixth Interrogatory Answer

James Walsh was acquainted with the Complainant and transacted business more or less for her. Malvina Huffman aforesaid I am under the impression that he ought to know that said Fanny Leiper was freeand I think that there is no doubt but what he did know that the property in question was hers

7. Seventh Interrogatory Answer

Malvina Huffman and Oliver S. Bemiss removed from Natchez about the first part of the year 1846they lived together like man and wife, both slept in one bed, I believesaid Bemiss told me that he had bought said property for said Malvina, and she demanded the keys of me as aforesaid, and took possession

8. Eighth Interrogatory Answer

I did serve a copy of the subpoena in this cause, hereto attached Marked W.S upon each; one on said Oliver S. Bemiss; and one on said Joseph Winscott personallyand I took one to the defendant Malvina Huffman, and she was in her chamber and I gave said subpoena to her servant, to deliver to her and said Bemiss told me next morning that said Malvina had received said subpoenaI served said subpoena in the city of New Orleans, in the parish of Orleans, in the State of Louisiana on the 23 day of December, A.D. 1847 each of them and all of them as aforesaid

Crop Interrogations

1. First Crop Interrogatory Answer

My acquaintance with said Complainant is, that I have known her for about Nine Years as a hard working Woman, Washing clothes for a supportshe is now about 35 or 36 years of age I supposeI do not know who is or was her motherI do not know her Mother at allI do not Know either Bob or Andy Lieper

2. Second Interrogatory Answer

I saw the Complainant when she resided in Natchezand I saw her in Cincinnatti aforesaid, about three weeks agoshe was a washer Woman in Natchez and she is a washer woman in Cincinnatti aforesaidI do not know that she is now, or that she has been a common town Woman –her mode of life in Natchez was that of a washer Woman, and her conduct was respectable as far as I know herher visible means of support was her labour, and at her little house and Lot, she raised some vegetables and had no rent to payI know of no other means which she had

3. Third Interrogatory Answer

I am acquainted with one Gustavus Howard, he lived with the Complainant on and offI heard they were married Mr Seth Dix? Told me sosaid relation or connexion commenced some three years agoshe used to get his Washing done by her, and he made his home there, and worked for me at the time

4. Fourth Interrogatory Answer

I know nothing of the Caving in of the Bank or Bluff in questionsaid property and all that neighborhood is bad? property for rent or residenceI collected the rent of said premises as I have before saidI considered the rent $8 per month as a reasonable price then and now

5. Fifth Interrogatory Answer

She was in possession of said premises from the year 1838 to 1846 I always knew her to be in possession as aforesaid in her own right exclusivelyand not in that of Mr Joseph Winscott

6. Sixth Interrogatory Answer

I am not aware that James Walsh has any interest in this suit or in these matters except as an agent for Malvina Huffman

7. Eighth Interrogatory Answer

My answers to the 5^th Interrogatory, are clear and without ambiguity, and explain themselves better by direct reference than I could now do againI cannot give any additional information on the subject, as my memory does not serve me with any other facts.

8. Eighth Interrogatory Answer

I do not know of my knowledge the parentage of the ComplainantI always believed her to be free and not a slavesuch was public opinion, and she acted in her own affairs as such and as such others dealt with her

9. Ninth Interrogatory Answer

The public opinion of the inhabitants of Natchez was that the Complainant Fanny Leiper was free and I suppose that Walsh thought so as well as the others

10. Tenth Interrogatory Answer

I cannot of my own knowledge, say anything in answer to this Interrogatory

11. Eleventh Interrogatory Answer

I do not think of anything further that would be material and of benefit to the Defendantscollectively or singly

Sworn to & subscribed before me this

22^nd day of November? 1848

Interrogations to be propounded to John R. Wells, A Witness of the Complainant, residing at St Louis in the state of Missouri, whose deposition when taken to be read as evidence in the trial and hearing of the above entitled cause, on the part and behalf of the said Complainant Fanny Leiper

Interrogatory first

Are you acquainted with the complainant and defendant in the above entitled suit?

Interrogatory second

Please examine the annexed paper purporting to be a deed signed by yourself and marked Exhibit A, and state whether you so signed and executed it, and state also by whom it was written and drawn upwho presented it to you for signature, to whom did you sell the land or Lot therein mentioned and Described to whom did you deliver saidinstrument, for what consideration and by whom was it paid

Interrogatory Third

In whose possession was the said described property at the date of said deed, to whom did you deliver the possession and who continued in it at the time you last saw it

Interrogatory Fourth

If in your answer to the first Interrogatory, you state that you know the defendant, Joseph Winscott, please state when and where you became acquainted with him and state also whether you ever had any dealings with him, whether he ever purchased any property from you, or you ever sold him any or whether he ever paid you any money, or whether any other person did so for him?

Interrogatory Fifth

If you answer affirmatively to the first interrogatory that you are acquainted with the Complainant Fanny Leiper please state what her complexion is, whether she is a mulatto, or of what bloodhow long you have known her and whether she was bond or free, and in which character did she live at Natchez

Interrogatory Sixth

Please Examine exhibit B filed in Complts Bill and hereto attached and state by whom it was signed and when and who paid you the money therein specified

Interrogatory Seventh

Please state whether the Defendant Malvina Huffman had any knowledge of the sale made by you of the same lot mentioned in the Deed from you to the Complainant and said Winscott, if so state how you know she had such knowledge and any circumstances that you may know by which she had such knowledge

Interrogatory Eighth

Please state all else you may know material to the ?? of the Complainant with this suit

Sanders & Haggin for Compl

December Term 1848

Cross Interrogatories to be propounded to John R. Wells a Witness of Complainant

1. If you answer that you are acquainted with Complainant state what was her business or means of support when residing in Natchez? Did she not live with or under the protection of the Defendant Joseph Winscott, commonly called and pronounced Wescott? Was not said Winscott then and is he not now a steamboat engineer on the Mississippi River, and frequently at Natchez?
2. Did you not execute said Deed in 2^nd direct interrogatory mentioned and referred to as A, to said Joseph Winscott and Fanny Leiper, and why was said Winscotts name placed first in said Deed? Can you state or do you know of your knowledge, whose was the money, that is who furnished the money that was paid to you for said property? If you answer that the money was handed to you by Fanny Leiper, state where she got said money, in what manner, from whom and from what consideration? And do you not know that said Winscott actually furnished said money?
3. Do you not know that said Fanny Leiper was living or associating with said Winscott in a way that need not be particularized, and that to obtain a place of Residence said Winscott furnished the money to purchase said lot and merely to gratify said Leiper allowed her name to be inserted in the deed thereof as joint purchaser? State fully what knowledge if any you have upon the subject matter of this Interrogatory
4. If to the 4^th direct Interrogatory you answer that you have never had any direct dealing with the Defendant Joseph Winscott, do you pretend to say, or can you pretend to say, of your own knowledge that said Leiper in handing you (if she did hand it to you) the money for said property was not acting for and by the direction of said Winscott? At whose suggestion was said Winscotts name inserted in the Deed, and by whom, if you know, and at what time has the same been erased? Please State fully
5. Have you any personal knowledge of the condition, bond or free or said Fanny Leiper? Who was her mother and was she not a slave? How old as nearly as you can state, is said Leiper?
6. Please State when you left Natchez to reside elsewhere, and whether you have often visited said City since? Were you in Natchez in the years 1842, 1843, 1844 & 1845? In which of these Years was the public opinion of Natchez aroused in regard to persons calling themselves free Negroes or Mulattos? Did not said Leiper at or during that period own herself a slave, and was she not claimed as such, and if so state by whom? Please answer fully

6. Do you know one Gustavus Howard and if so what connection or relation if any is there between said Howard and Said Leiper and when did it commence?
7. Do you know of your own knowledge, whose was the money or who furnished the money mentioned in Exhibit B, referred to in 6^th direct interrogatory? Have you any other reason to suppose that said Leiper actually paid you said money as of her own funds, except that she handed the same to you, that is, was the channel through which you received it? And if so, state such reason or reasons, fully and minutely.
8. If in reply to 7^th direct interrogatory, you answer that the Defendant Malvina Huffman, had any knowledge of the sale from you to said Winscott and Fanny Leiper, please state fully and particularly what that knowledge was when it was communicated by whom, where, and in what mannerwhether verbally or in writing, and if the latter, when such writing is? State your means and sources of information, and distinguish what you know of your own knowledge, if any thing, from what you may have heard?
9. Do you not know or have you not understood that the interest and share, if any, that said Leiper has or may have had in said property, was given to her by said Winscott as the price or in consideration of her living with him as a companion?
10. If you know anything further that may be material as of benefit to Defendants in the premises, please state it as fully under the general interrogatory, as if thereunto specially interrogated.

Davis & Cox, Sals for Defendants

And on the 26^th day of December A.D. 1848, the following Deposition of J.R. Wells was filed, and opened in Open Court

Deposition of Witness. Produced, Sworn and examined before me Peter Cniess, a Justice of the Peace. Within and for the County of St. LouisState of Missouri, in a certain Suit now pending in the Southern District Chancery Court State of MississippiWherein Fanny Leiper is Complainant and Malvina Huffman and others are defendantson the part of the Complainant

John R. Wells being produced, sworn, and examined, on the part of the Complainant, deposith and Saith, as follows to Wit:

In answer to the 1^st Interrogatory, in the commission hereto annexed, affiant states, that he is acquainted with the Complainant in this suit, and also with two of the defendants, namely Malvina Huffman and Oliver S. Bemiss, and that if Joseph Winscott was an engineer running on the river in the New Orleans trade, on the Steamer Hail Columbia in the Year 1838 or 1839, I was slightly acquainted with him at that period, but have no recollection of seeing that person previous to that periodAnd if James Walsh was a Constable in Natchez about the same period, he, affiant was acquainted with him

In answer to the Second Interrogatory Affiant answers as followsthat the Deed marked Exhibit A, and hereunto annexed was signed by him, but at the time of signing affiant verily believes there was not any name preceeding that of Fanny Leiper but was left altogether blank, as Complainant told affiant that she understood, according to the Laws of Mississippi she could not hold property, and therefore the blank was left, in order that she might choose her own associate and have it filled up at any future time, that said Leiper consulted with this affiant, as to who would be a proper person for her to have in the Deed with her, and that would not take any advantage of herAnd to this affiants Knowledge the name of Winscott was not mentioned at the time, Nor did he ever hear the name, or know such a person at that time. Affiant believes (at least Complainant told him so at the time) that Col. Fleming Wood, wrote the Deed, and likewise told her that it would be necessary to have some white person associated with her, to enable her to hold the property; that said Leiper presented said deed to affiant for his signature but the word their instead of her, was either altered or inserted since that time. Affiant sold the land on lot to Fanny Leiper, the Complainant, for one hundred and Seventy five Dollars, and not Five Hundred Dollars, as mentioned in the Deed, One Hundred Dollars of said Sum was paid by the Complainant to me in April 1834, the Balance ($75) was paid by said Leiper to me at sundry times in small installments, when the last payment was made, she presented the deed for signature, which I signed and returned it to her

In answer to the third Interrogatory, affiant answers as followsThat at the date of sale, the property/a vacant Lot/ was in his possession, at the date of the Deed it was in the possession of the Complainantaffiant delivered the possession of said lot to Fanny Leiper, and when he last saw it (in 1840) it was still in her possessionAffiant knew of no transfer of the property whatever

In answer to the fourth Interrogatory, affiant answers as followsThat in 1838 or 1839, he was captain of the Steam Boat Hail Columbia, when he first saw or knew one Joseph Winscott, who was then acting as Engineer of said BoatNever had any dealings with him whatever, his money dealings of Course was always with the Clerk of the Boatnever heard Winscott say anything with respect to the property in dispute or of Fanny Leiper eitherWinscott never brought [bought?] any property of me, Nor I from himNo person ever paid me any money from him, Nor did he ever pay me any himself for there was never any business transactions between us, on his account.

In answer to the Fifth Interrogatory, affiant answers as followsThat Complainant was a Dark Mulatto, that he always considered her a free woman, that he knew her several Years previous to the sale, and that she lived in Natchez as a free person of Colour.

In answer to the Sixth Interrogatory, affiant answers as followsThat Exhibit B hereto annexed, was signed by him and the money paid to him by Fanny Leiper

In answer to the Seventh Interrogatory, affiant answers as follows; That he offered said lot to Malvina Huffman (one of the Defendants) for sale, in consequence of having sold her the adjoining lot; but she refused to buy it, but she must necessarily have known of the sale of the lot to the Complainant Fanny Leiperof Winscott afiant knows nothing in said sale, nor did he know him for several years afterwards

In answer to the Eighth affiant Answers, that he knows nothing more, material to the rights of the Complainant, than what he stated in the foregoing interrogatories

Cross Examination

In answer to the First Interrogatory, Affiant Answers that he Knew nothing whatever of her business or of her means of support, that she always looked well and dressed wellThat she was the reputed daughter of a wealthy Planter living back from Natchez: That she might have made a portion of her living off some of the members of the Natchez BarAffiant knows nothing of the Complainant living with or under the protection of any person of the name of Winscott or Wescott nor did he know any person of either names at the timeThe Weinscott affiant knew, he knows nothing of since he left the Hail Columbia in the summer of 1839--?? Previous to the spring of said year

In answer to the Second Interrogatory, affiant Answers That he executed a Deed to Fanny

Leiper in April 1836 but none whatever at any time to Winscott or Wescott, Winscotts name was not in said Deed, when signed by meThe Complainant handed affiant the money $175 at different timesdoes not know who furnished the money, or if any person furnished Leiper with the money. Did not know at this time if there was any such person as Winscott in the world

In answer to the Third Interrogatory, affiant Answers, that he never heard anything of the kind previous to his leaving Natchez in 1840, no [t] until about the laast two years, when this dispute had arisen

In answer to the Fourth Interrogatory, affiant answers that he knows nothing whatever of Winscott or any other person assisting Complainant in the purchase of said LotI did hear her say that her Father would assist her in building a House, but she did not say who her Father was; Affiant answers that he knows nothing Whatever of Winscotts name to said Deed, or of the erasure therefrom

In answer to the Fifth Interrogatory Affiant Answers, that Leiper the Complainant was generally considered to be free does not recollect her Mothers name but knew her welldoes not know of my own Knowledge, whether Leipers Mother was a slave or notas near as I can state, Leiper the Complainant is now about thirty years of age

In answer to the Sixth Interrogatory, affiant answers that he left Natchez in June 1840, that he has passed there twice since, but has not been on the HillAffiant does not know in what year, the people of Natchez were aroused with respect to free negroes or MulattosDoes not know of Leipers ever owning herself as a slave, nor do I know of the circumstances of her ever being claimed as such--

In answer to the Seventh Interrogatory, affiant Answers as follows, That he knows Gustavus Howard; it was generally said that Howard and Leiper lived together as far back as the purchase of the property by Leiper, and since that

In answer to the Eighth Interrogatory Affiant Answers that he has had no reason whatever to believe that the Claimant got the money she paid him from any personbut supposes she might have got some assistance from Howardwith respect to the purchase of the lot by Leiper from meI knew nothing of how or where she got the moneyNor did I ever ask her, no more than if I had sold it to any other person.

In answer to the Ninth Interrogatory Affiant Answers that he does not know that Malvina Huffman knew anything of my selling said Lot to Leiper, more than it was a public transaction that any one in Natchez might be acquainted with, knows nothing of how she became acquainted with the transaction at all, either verbally or in writing

In answer to the Tenth Interrogatory, Affiant Answers, that he never heard or knew any thing of the Kind

In Answer to the Eleventh Interrogatory, Affiant Answers that he Knows nothing whatever to relate that might be material for the benefit of the defendantsto add to what already has been statedAnd further saith not

Sworn to and Subscribed before me the 11^th day of December 1848

And on this day to wit: the 25^th day of December 1848 the following Answer of the Dfnts, was filed in this Cause to wit:

State of Mississippi

Southern District Chancery Court of December Term, 1848

Fanny Leiper

Vs

Malvina Huffman & al

Said Malvina Huffman, Oliver S. Bemiss and Joseph Winscott, Defendants in the above entitled cause by protestation not confessing &c, for plea to do much of said Bill as seeks from these Defendants or either of them any discovery, account or relief in manner and form &c do plead thereunto and day that at before and after the matters and things in said Bill complained of and alleged to wit at before and after the cause & causes, if any of Complaint and action therein mentioned accusedon and at &csaid Complainant was and had been a slave and not, as in said Bill is falsely pretended, a free woman of colourall which these Defendants do aver and are ready to prove as this court shall direct and do plead in bur as aforesaid and pray, the Judgment of this Court whether they shall make any other or further Answer &c And as to so much of said Bill as charges any fraud, confederation, combination, false statements or misrepresentation of any kind or description, the pretended fact or facts of which the same are charged, these defendants do wholly deny the same jointly & severally &c.

Davis & Case, Defts Soliciters

And on this day, to wit: the 7^th day of May 1849 the following answer was filed in this cause to wit:

State of Mississippi

Southern District Chancery Court To June Term thereof 1849

The joint and several answer of Malvina Huffman, Oliver S. Bemiss and Joseph Winscott to the Bill of Complaint filed against them and others by one Fanny Leiper, in the Court aforesaid.

These Defendants saving and reserving all and every exception to said Bill of Complaint &c, for answer thereto severally say that they are informed and believe that said Fanny Leiper does live and did live at the time of filing her said Bill, in Cincinnatti Ohio, but that she resides there, or did reside there, either at or any time before the filing of said Bill, these defendants severally have no knowledge, and deny the same. Further these Defendants wholly deny that said Leiper is a free woman of colour, as in said Bill is alleged, and aver that if even, or in any any way recognizable by the law and policy of this state, said Leiper has been emancipated, such emancipation has taken place within a very short period prior to the filing of said Bill and long after the cause or causes of suit if any, therein alleged or shown accrued. And these defendants severally show and aver that at and before the time when the pretended causes of Complaint and Action in said Bill contained accrued, said Complainant was and had been a slave and not a free woman of Colour as in said Bill she alleges, and these defendants do therefore aver and rely upon the same as if it were formally and specially pleaded to said Bill.

Further answering these defendants admit that Complainant lived in the City of Natchez in the year 1834, but do not know that she has she alleges ‘any money of her own,’ or that if she had, she desired to invest it in real Estate in said city of Natchez. They wholly deny however that said Complainant even contracted with said John R. Wells, except as herein after stated, for the purchase of said lot of ground in Natchez, the description whereof as contained in said Bill of Complaint these Defendants believe Correct. These Defendants shew and aver that the money for the purchase of said lot of ground was furnished and supplied to said Complainant at her request by this Defendant Winscott, and that the Deed for said lot should and ought to have been taken in his name alone, but that in the request and application of said Leiper, and in order to gratify a whim on her part, this Defendant Winscott consented that the name of said Leiper should also be included, as a grantee in said Deed after the name of him said Winscott, which was done accordingly. These Defendants deny that said Complainant, as in said Bill is pretended, paid of her own funds the sum of One Hundred Dollars to said Wells, as part consideration of said Lot, but aver the truth to be that said Money was paid by said Winscott through said Complainant in his behalf, and the receipt for the same merely taken in her name. Defendants do not know nor are they informed, and therefore deny that said Leiper gave her note for the balance, say Seventy five dollars of the purchase money of said Lot to said Wells, but if she did as is alleged, they aver that the same was paid by this defendant Winscott in money from time to time, handed by him, for such purpose to said Leiper who these defendants suppose delivered the same over to said Wells. And Defendants aver that said balance of Seventy five Dollars was not paid to the said Wells, on or about the 19^th April 1836, as in said Bill pretended, but that the same was paid at intervals, in small sums before that date and that such small sums were furnished to said Leiper as aforesaid by said Winscott, out of and from his own funds, earned by the work of his own handsDefendants admit that the Deed for said House from said Wells was taken in the names of this DefendantWinscott and said Leiper jointly, and that their names, both of them, that of said Winscott first and that of said Leiper last, were so in said Deed when the same was executed and delivered by said Wells. But they totally deny that the name of this Defendant Winscott or the name of said Leiper was inserted in said Deed for the reason or purpose or object in said Bill pretended. But on the contrary they aver and shew that the name of said Winscott was inserted and placed first because he was in truth the purchaser of the property of and out of his own funds: and that the name of said Leiper was so inserted, not because she paid of her own money any part of the consideration in said Deed mentioned, but merely and only to gratify one of her whimsSaid Winscott at that time and before and after, being often temporarily domiciliated with her, in an amiable manner, and the said Leiper, after the ways of women, importuning him for some token of regard. Defendants do not know what, if any thing occurred as pretended in said Bill between said Complainant and any attorney, if any attorney was ever consulted as to the drawing up of said Deed from said Wells: but they deny that any representation made by said Leiper to any attorney as pretended to said Wells, or to any other person, to the prejudice and in fraud of the just rights of these Defendants, or either of them can in any way or to any extend affect or modify the real facts or merits of this controversy

The Defendants do not know, nor are they informed by whom or at what time the name of said Winscott in said Deed was erased or attempted to be erased, they deny that such erasure was made by these defendants or either of them, or by or with their knowledge or consent, or the knowledge or consent of either of them and submit to this Honourable Court that such erasure cannot in any way, unless made by said Complainant affect the right or interest of said Winscott or the residue of these defendants in and to said lot of ground with the appurtenances

These Defendants admit that said Winscott was not at the date of said Deed a resident permanently, of the city of Natchez and that he did not accept said Deed as coupled with any trusts or intended trust for the use and benefit of said Complainant. But these Defendants aver that said Winscott did accept said Deed as his own and for his own benefit and did know the existence of said Deed shortly after the execution of the same and did take possession of said Lot of ground in said Deed conveyed by and through himself at intervals, when his Occupation, being that of any engineer on the Mississippi River, allowed him to be in the City of Natchez. And by and through the said Complainant for him and in his behalf, said Winscott always regarding and considering said Leiper as his tenant at sufferance of said premises

Defendants suppose that the paper marked B. filed with said Bill is the Original Receipt from said Wells for the sum of One Hundred Dollars but they deny that Complainant is entitled to use the sum for her own benefit, the money therein mentioned having been furnished as before stated by this Defendant Winscott and the acquittance therefor having been wrongfully and without authority taken by said Complainant in her own name.

Defendants admit that said Complainant made various improvements upon said Lot from time to time, partly if not almost wholly with and by the money supplied to her by said Winscott. What part if any of the price of such improvements said Complainant paid from and out of her own funds, these Defendants do not know and are not informed and insist so far as it may affect the interests upon full and strict proof of the same. They wholly deny however that any and all improvements upon said lot, by whomsoever made, cost the sum or sums in said Bill alleged, and do far as the same may or can affect the interests of these Defendants in the premises require stringent and full proof of the cost and value of all such improvements.

These Defendants deny that said Complainant as in said Bill is pretended, held or occupied said lot and improvements or either of them from the year 1834 to the year 1845, or during any portion of that period, as her own exclusive and separate property or that she had any right or authority so to do. As regards the assessment for taxes of said property these Defendants suppose from the papers filed with said Bill marked C, and so in alphabetically to J, inclusive that said Leiper did have the said property assessed in her own name: but they deny that said Leiper had any right or authority from said Winscott so to do, or that she paid such taxes with her own money.

Defendants do not know when said Complainant removed, if at all, from the City of Natchez, nor whether, as in said Bill is alleged she appointed Samuel R. Hammett her agent for the purposes alleged, but they aver that if she made such appointment the same was without right or authority.

These Defendants do not deny but admit that the said Malvina Huffman and Oliver S. Bemiss knew that said Deed from said Wells was in the names jointly of said Winscott and Leiper, but they aver and shew that they were informed and believe, and still believe that said Leiper had paid no Part whatever of the consideration for the property in said Deed contained: that her name was inserted in said Deed merely at her request and to gratify a whim and that she was a slave at the date of said Deed and so continued for a long period afterwards, and so was incapable of purchasing, even if she had paid any portion of the purchase money, property for her own benefit

These Defendants severally and wholly deny that said Huffman procured said Bemiss to confederate with her, or falsely or fraudulently represented to said Winscott that the legal title in said lot and premises was in him, said Winscott alone, or that said Complainant was a slave, or could not hold it, or that she had run off from the country, or that said property was of little or no value, or that the same was going to ruin, or that he said Winscott, had the right to sell the same, or that said Complainant had given it to said Winscott, or that said Hoffman and Bemiss or either of them made any representation to said Winscott for the purpose of cheating, or which were calculated to cheat or defraud said Complainant, or that by any such means, they procured a conveyance of said property from said Winscott: or that the consideration mentioned in said conveyance, a true copy of which Defendants believe to be contained in Exhibit Ufiled with said bill, and to which these defendants beg leave to refer, was only nominal, in that the value of said property was one Thousand Dollars, or any other sum above and beyond the sum of One Hundred Dollars On the Contrary these Defendants aver and shew that said purchase by this Defendant Hoffman from said Winscott was fair and honest, and without any unusual means or unfair representations: That said Hoffman owned and still owns, adjacent property, and that the ownership of said lot, by reason thereof was suitable and convenient: that the consideration to wit, One hundred Dollars, was the reasonable value of said lot, and that in the opinion of this Defendant Hoffman, no person other than herself would have paid that amount for it: That said lot by the gradual but constant washing away and caving in of the Bluff on which it is situated had greatly lessened in size and contents and that from lapse of time, necessary wear and tear and from the neglect of said Complainant thereto, the improvements on said lot had greatly deteriorated and dwindled, literally and truly, almost to no value

These Defendants do not know when said Complainant first became Acquainted with the sale of said Lot, as contained in Exhibit U, filed with said Bill, nor do they know that she derived such information form one Cooper as alleged or any other person, but they wholly deny that said Hoffman either personally or by said Bemiss or by any other person, sent word, as in said Bill is falsely pretended to said Hammett, to send to her said Hoffman, the keys of said house, and that she had purchased said House and lot from said Complainant, and that said Hammett acting upon or believing such representations sent to her said Hoffman the keys of said House On the contrary these Defendants aver and shew that on or about the [blank] day of [blank] AD 184[blank] and shortly after the purchase of said House and Lot by said Hoffman from said Winscott, said Bemiss informed said Hammett that said Hoffman through him said Bemiss, had purchased said house and Lot from said Winscott, and that thereupon said Hammett sent the keys of said House by a servant girl to said Hoffman Defendants submit it to this Honorable Court as a very extraordinary circumstance that said Complainant by and through her agent said Hammett should recognize the right and authority of said Winscott to sell and convey away said property to said Hoffman, by surrendering to the latter the possession symbolically of said property, if indeed, both in law and in fact said Winscott had not such right and authority:

And this Defendant Malvina Hoffman insists that said Complainant by her recognition of such right and authority in said Winscott is now stopped and precluded from contesting or denying the same, especially when such denial would prejudice a third person who is a purchaser

Defendants deny that said Hoffman obtained possession of said House and Lot in any manner other than is above set forth; but admit that she has since either by herself or some other person in her behalf, had possession thereof as well she might as her own property.

Deny that said property or any portion of it since the occupation thereof by said Hoffman or her agents has been abused or put out of repair or in any way or to any amount damaged or destroyed, the usual wear and tear excepted, but aver that the same has been attended to and cared for prudently and judiciously and is in as good condition and plight, natural and unavoidable deterioration only excepted as when said Hoffman first became possessed thereof. Deny that since the possession by said Hoffman of said property the same has been worth the sum annually of One Hundred and twenty five Dollars, but aver that it has been worth and has rented only for the sum of four ($4) her month exclusive of taxes, and for a more particular account of the rent of said property and the amount collected therefor this Defendant Hoffman begs leave to refer to the answer of her CoDefendant James Walsh, which for such purpose she adopts as her ownDeny that said Winscott did not claim an interest in said Property before the date of his conveyance as contained in Exhibit U, therefor or that he did not know that said property had been conveyed to him, as before stated: or that said Hoffman knew that said Complainant had purchased said property as her own, or had put improvements upon it with her own funds

And this Defendant Joseph Winscott avers and shews, that he was applied to sometime in the fall of the year 1845 by said Malvina Hoffman through the said Oliver S. Bemiss, for the purchase of said property contained in Exhibit U. and that he sold to the same as in said Exhibit U. is stated to the said Malvina Huffman, for the sum of One hundred Dollars, then and there paid to him by said Hoffman And in answer to the special interrogatories in said Bill contained, said Winscott says as follows

1^st In reply to this interrogatory said Winscott says that he does not now recollect the exact time when said Leiper informed him that said Wells had actually executed the Deed for said lot to him and said Leiper, but to the best of his knowledge and belief he was aware of it as early as the month of May A.D. 1836

2^nd In answer, said Winscott says that he does not recollect whether said Leiper actually delivered and placed in his hands said Original Deed, but that he does remember that said Leiper had the same jointly in their behalf

3^rd In answer, said Winscott says that he did pay the whole of the purchase money for said Lot. He did not hand it directly to the said Wells, but conveyed it to him through and by the said Leiper. He paid the sum of One Hundred Dollars, about the time as well as he now recollects mentioned in Exhibit B, filed with said Bill and the residue he handed from time to time in small sums to the said Leiper for the purpose of settling the balance of the purchase money, to wit; Seventy five Dollars (and not one Hundred Dollars as Complainant falsely pretends) with said Wells before the date of said Exhibit A

4^th In answer, said Winscott says, that he did pay and furnish funds to said Leiper for the improvements made in said property since the year 1834, at various times, but what amount he is unable to recollect or stateThis Defendant Winscott Kept no account of such moneys, nor has he ever in his life Kept any account of his expenditures for any purpose,--and the nature and extent of his acquaintance and intercourse with said Complainant, presented no reason or inducement, to him, to adopt a different rule

5^th In answer said Winscott states, that he never resided permanently in Natchez at any time: that he was an Engineer on the Mississippi River, and was frequently in Natchez for a day or two at a time: that to the best of his recollection he was in Natchez, both shortly before and shortly after the date of said Exhibit A, and that he knew as early as May A.D 1836, that his name was in said Deed, and that said Deed was executed. That the purchase of said property had been matter of conversation between him and said Leiper and that he had promised her to buy the same and furnish the money to pay for it, which he did accordingly as before statedand that he believes that said Leiper herself informed him of the execution of said Deed.

And these Defendants deny all and all manner of unlawful combination and confederacy wherewith they are by the said Bill charged, without this that there is any other matter cause or thing in said Bill of Complaint contained material or necessary for these Defendants to make answer with and herein and hereby well and sufficiently answered, confessed traversed, and avoided or denied, is true to the knowledge or belief of these defendants or either of them, all which matters and things these defendants and each of them are ready and willing to aver maintain and prove as this Honourable Court shall direct and humbly pray to be hence dismissed with their reasonable costs in this behalf most wrongfully sustained

Davis & Cox, Solicitors for Complainants

…And on this day to wit the 11^th day of June 1849 the following Depositions of H.A. Dillion & W.C. Smith were filed in this cause and opened in Open Court the 2^nd day of January 1851.

Depositions taken before me Ralph North, a Commissioner of the Southern District Chancery Court of the State of Mississippi for and residing in the County of Adams, on the ninth day of June in the year Eighteen Hundred and forty nine, in a certain cause now depending in said Court, sitting at Natchez, in said County, wherein Fanny Leiper is Complainment, and Malvina Huffman, Oliver S. Bemiss Joseph Winscott and James Walsh are Defendants, for and in behalf of the said Defendants.

Henry A. Dillon being first duly Sworn deposes and says that he is acquainted with the Complainant Fanny Leiper, and has been since the Year 1832 or 1833. Said Fanny left the City of Natchez in the Spring or Fall of the year 1844 and deponent understood she then went to Cincinnatti to reside. Deponent has been acting as Constable in said City of Natchez since the fall of 1841 up to the present time. In January or February of the Year 1843, deponent in his official character notified said Fanny, as a free Negro, that she was unlawfully in this State and that she must leave it in twenty days or shew cause to the contrary: said Fanny then declared to Deponent that she was not free but a slave belonging to a Mr Miller at or near Washington: said notice required said Fanny to appear before one D.L Rivers, then acting as a Justice of the Peace of said County of Adams, and show cause why she should not leave the State: and deponent afterwards desisted from further proceedings against said Fanny, because he understood that said Fanny was successfully claimed as a slave by said Miller. Deponent to the best of his recollection stated to Defendant Bemiss or his Codefendant Huffman the result of the above mentioned proceedings, as he has himself stated them above, but of this he Deponent has no distinct recollection he is however more inclined to the belief that he made the statement, than to a contrary belief; and he made the statement soon after said notice and other proceedings: Deponent is acquainted with the premises in controversy. Said Complainant sometime before said notice, stated to Deponent that a pilot or engineer of a Steam Boat on the Mississippi River had purchased in his own name (not now recollected) said premises for the use and benefit of Complainant and paid for them, with whose money deponent does not now recollect: and that said Pilot or Engineer was then trying to swindle Complainant out of the premises: that said premises had been purchased for the sole use of Complainant, that the Deed ought to have been to her, but was taken in the name of said Pilot or Engineer      

Cross examined by Counsel for Complainant

From the time of Deponent first acquaintance with said Fanny up to the date of the notice above mentioned said Fanny deported herself and passed as a free Woman of Colour. Deponent thinks said Fanny lived in the premises in controversy, at the date of said Notice, and that she continued to reside there until she left the County as above stated. Deponent does not know that she had any other residence in Natchez during his acquaintance with her. Deponent never saw said Fanny in the posession of said Miller or any person claiming under him. Said premises adjoined property occupied by Defendant Huffman, and Deponent had occasionally seen said Fanny in the house of the said Huffman, and occupied by her while in Natchez. Deponent has no recollection of his having ever seen the Defendant Winscott in Natchez during deponents residence: and does not know that a person of that name ever resided in said City. Complainant is a bright mulatto

Re examined

Complainant stated to Deponent that the Pilot or engineer above mentioned had been living with her, but that they had seperated

In witness whereof said Deponent hereunto subscribes his name, the day and year aforesaid

Henry A. Dillon

William C. Smith being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is acquainted with the premises in controversy, and has known them since the year 1845 or 1846 to the present time: is tolerably well acquainted with the price of rents in the City of Natchez and has been since said years: having himself rented several tenements during said period, he lately resided on property adjoining the premises in controversy, and that the rent of said premises is worth about three dollars per month, the said premises are now in a bad condition, and would not bring three dollars per month unless repaired, three or four months since a Mr Platte stating that he wished to rent said premises asked deponent what they could be rented for Deponent replied that said premises could be had for four dollars per month, to which said Platte rejoined that he would not give that much: the House on said premises is a mere shell with two rooms, and it has no out houses, except a small shed: the cistern is now in a bad and useless condition and has been so during the last twelve months: and when in order it was supplied from the roof and gutters of the adjacent house

Cross Examined

Deponent has from his earliest recollection been acquainted with the complainant Fanny Leiper, and he has always regarded her as a free woman of colour: she so far as Deponent has any knowledge on the subject, has always passed as such. In Witness whereof said Deponent hereunto subscribes his name the day and year aforesaid

Wm C. Smith

…Interrogatories to be propounded to Colonel Fleming Wood, residing in the County of Spottsylvania State of Virginia, a witness for the Complainant, in the above entitled suit: whose deposition was taken to be read on behalf of the Complainant on the trial of the same.

Interrogatory First

Are you acquainted with the parties to this suit? If yea state when you became acquainted with them, and how long you have known the Complt., and where you resided at the time you first knew her, and when you removed from that place?

Interrogatory Second

If you know the said Complainant please state, what was her complexion, and apparent age, when you last saw herwhether or not she bond or free, and in which of those conditions did she act, and in which condition was she received and recognized by the people or community where she [they omitted the end, but I suppose it’s lived]

Interrogatory Third

Please examine the annexed Copy of a Deed purporting to be from John R. Wells to the said Complainant and Defendant Joseph Winscott and state whether or not you have any knowledge of the original of said DeedIf yea state by whom it was written or drawn up, at whose request and instruction and for what purpose and inducementwho paid the purchase moneyand all you know about it.

Interrogatory Fourth

Were you or not acquainted with the lot mentioned in said DeedIf yea, state whether or not it was improved, at what time, and by whom improvedand as near as you can state, the kind and value of said improvements?

Interrogatory Fifth

Please State all else you know material to the rights of the complainant in said suit

Sanders & Haggin, for Complt.

Cross Interrogations to be propounded to Fleming Wood a witness on the part of Complainant

1. Do you know or have you ever known the father and Mother or either of them, of the Complainant? If so state who the Mother was at and before the time of Complainants birth? Was not such mother colored and a slave, the property of one Mrs Overraker or some such person? When was said Complainant born as nearly as you can state? If you make or can make any answer to the 2^nd Interrogatory, wherein you are asked whether said Complainant ‘was bond or Free’ please state what you understand by said termsand do you mean by them the actually and legally being in a condition of bondage or freedom, or being reputed and supposed so to be? Do you know upon what terms and by what evidence or solemnity the laws of this State allow a slave one born soto be manumitted? If the mother of Complainant was a slave at the time of Complainants birth, would the complainant be free, provided her father was free, or a white man? Or if the mother of Complainant was manumitted after Complainants birth, would such manumission also emancipate the complainant, or would the complainant still remain a slave, as if there had been no such manumission? Please state fully your knowledge and views

Cross Intg 2^nd If you know anything of the Deed in 3^rd direct Interrogatory mentioned, and of the payment of the purchase money therein mentioned, state where, at what place and in whose presence said money was paid? Who furnished such money, and was any receipt given for its payment, except the recital in the Deed?

3^rd When did you last see the property mentioned in said Deed, and did you at that time examine it at all closely and carefully, so as to form any accurate opinion of its value or condition, or the value or condition of its improvements? Have you seen and examined said lot and improvements since they have been in the possession of the Defendant Hoffman? Have you seen and examined them since the latter part of the year 1846, and if so in what condition were they then?

4^th Please state anything further that you may Know, which may be material and of benefit to Defendants or any of them in the premises.

Davis for Defnts

Further notice & copies waived, and agreed that Commission may issue directed to J.M. Waller as Pom? Upon the foregoing Intggs and Cross Intgs reserving all legal exception to evidence

G.M. Davis for Defts

Be it remembered that on this the 13^th day of November A.D 1849 Col Fleming Wood (a witness in the above suit) of Spottsylvaia County, State of Virginia, appeared before me at Cedar Point, my place of residence in said County and State and in pursuance of the annexed commission to one directed wherein Fanny Leiper is plaintiff & Malvina Huffman & others are DefendantsI proceeded to examine said Witness on oath to all the annexed Interrogatories both direct and indirect

Answer to Interrogatory

Witness states that he is acquainted with Fanny Leiper the Plaintiffalso with Malvina Huffman and Oliver S. Bemiss, Defendants, and thinks that he has seen Joseph Winscott and James Walsh defts, but cannot say that he could identify them. He has known the said Fanny Leiper eversince the spring of the year 1823, when she lived with Mr Magouder and his Wife, who was a Miss Overaker before her marriage to MagruderShe said Fanny was then to the best of his recollection about 12 years oldHe became acquainted with Malvina Huffman at or before the year 1837 and then knew her by the name of Malvina Mitchell or HuffmanHe does not now recollect of becoming acquainted with Oliver S. Bemiss earlier than the year 1839. All of the above parties Leiper, Huffman and Bemiss lived in Natchez at the above dates. He was a resident of Natchez when he first knew the above parties and knew them till May 1845 when said Witness left for this State (VA)

Answer to 2^nd Interrogatory

Witness states that Fanny Leiper the above Complainant, was of a bright yeallow complexion, and aged about 37 years old, when he last saw her in the spring of 1845. In relation to her bondage or Freedom he can say but little of his own knowledge. His recollection is, that while living a neighbor to the said Magruder in 1823, he understood the said Fanny would be free on arriving at age of maturity, but does not now, nor ever did know the particulars. The way the said Fanny acquired the name of Leiper was that she married a mulatto man by that appellation who died some short time after his marriage. It was then sometime about the year 1831, and ever since she was said to be free, or at least acted as such, and was so considered by those who knew her though he does not know whether she was legally or not

Answer to the 3^rd Interrogatory

Witness states that he has examined the annexed copy of a deed from Jno R. Wells to Joseph Winscott and Fanny Leiper, and believes that he filled up the blanks in the Original printed Deedhe does not recollect whether it was at the instance of said Jno R. Wells or Fanny Leiper that he was called upon to make or write out said DeedHe recollects that Fanny Leiper told him she had paid for the land described in said Deed, and that she had been advised, and perhaps wanted my advice also, to know if she could hold said land in her own rightShe at length concluded to have said Deed made out in the name of Joseph Winscott and herself stating as her reason that he was her husband or lived with her as such.

Answer to the 4^th Interrogatory

Witness states that he was acquainted with the lot of ground described in said Deed, that it was situated just above and adjoining to Malvina Huffmans residence, that it had improvements thereon He thinks as far back as 1834, and perhaps earlier, but does not know who put them there, or the value thereof, he believes from the date above, 1837, there had some other improvements been put on said Lot, but does not know who put them or the value thereof.

Answer to the 5^th Interrogatory

Witness has nothing, as the foregoing answers seem to cover the whole ground, or all at least, that he knows, in relation to the premises.

Cross Examination

1^st Interrogatory

Witness answers that he does not know who was the father or Mother of the said Fanny Leiperin relation to her birth he knows nothingHe understands by the terms bond and free, that the Mother of a coloured person must be free to under her offspring such, and not that a child of a slave mother, with a white man or free man as father, makes the child free at any age. On the subject of slavery and freedom he understood the Laws of the State of Mississippi while a resident there I Complainants Mother was a slave at her birth, that is the birth of said Fanny, and was afterwards manumitted, that of itself would not make complainant free, no matter who was her father

2^nd Cross Interrogatory

Witness states that he has said all about said Deeds that he knows or now recollects, and that of his own personal knowledge he knows nothing about the payment of said Land, except what has been said on the subject in the Answer to 3^rd direct Interrogatory. He saw the property described in said Deed, in the latter part of Aprl 1845 and not since: as state in his answer to the 4^th direct Interrogatory, does not know the value thereofnot knowing when Malvina Huffman came in possession of it or who is in possession of it nowhe thinks his answers above cover all the inquiries of the 2^nd Interrogatory

To the 3^rd Cross Interrogatory

Witness states that his foregoing answers to the direct and indirect interrogatories seem to cover all the interrogations both by plaintiff and Defendants, and further says nothing

All of which answers were written out by the said Witness F Wood

And on the 16^th day of July A.D. 1850, the following Depositions were filed in this Cause, and opened by consent of Counsel on the 20^th day of December 1850:

Depositions taken at the house of Gabriel Tichenor, near Cincinnatti Ohio, on the 19^th day of November A.D. 1850, before me Edward T. Cranch, Commissioner, in pursuance of a Commission to me directed from the Southern District Chancery Court of the State of Mississippi, in a cause wherein Fanny Leiper in Complainant, and Malvina Huffman and others are DefendantsWhich Commission and the Interrogatories and Cross Interrogatories thereto attached are hereto attached

Gabriel Tichenor, being of lawful age, and being duly sworn deposes as follows, in answer to the interrogatories of the Complainant as follows.

Answer to Interrogatory 1^st of Complt.

I am acquainted with Complainant, not with the Defendantshave known her from infancy, both at Natchez her birth place, and at Cincinnatti her present place of abode

2^nd Answer to Interrogatory 2^nd of Complt

Complainants Complexion is that of a very bright mulatto, and she is about 35 years old. Since I have known her she has been bond & free. She was born at Natchez about the year 1811, and her Mother was then a slave, the property of Mr George Overaker: about the year 1831, she was made free

3^rd Answer to Interrogatory 3d

As stated above Complainant was made free in 1831, at the instance of a white man, her reputed father, who paid Mrs Overaker $300. The impression on my mind is that she was furnished with a full & regular deed of manumission, duly executed, but of this fact I cannot be certain, I think I wrote, and Witnessed such a Paperall done at Natchez.

4^th Answer to Interrogatory 4^th

Fanny Leiper lived and made Cincinnatti, Ohio, her home in the years 1845, 1846 &1847. In answer to the rest of the Interrogatory, Witness has no knowledge of the facts.

5. 5^th Answer to Interrogatory 5^th

Slavery or involuntary servitude has not been allowed in the State of Ohio, since Complainant has lived thereIn answer to the rest of Interrogatory I know nothing further.

In answer to the Cross Interrogatories of the Defendants, Witness says as follows

Answer to Cross Interrogatory 1^st

The said Fanny Leiper was born at Natchez, as above stated in about the year 1811. Her mother was a Coloured Woman, slave of George Overaker of Natchez.

Answer to Cross Interrogatory 2d

The said Complainant was intended to be made free, in the largest sense of the wordand she used that freedom, and her former owner had no claim, and never has thought of exacting any service from her.

Answer to Cross Interrogatory 3d

The Mother of Complainant, after the birth of said Complainant, resided at Natchez, and continued there several years, and was emancipated, and removed to Cincinnatti, Ohio, near which City she now lives. The Free papers have been duly recorded at CincinnattiThe consideration given for her freedom was faithful service already performed

Answer to Cross Interrogatory 4^th

I have already stated all that I know in answer to this questionI have heard much said as regards the loss of the papers & the pains taken by Complainant to have her papers recorded at Cincinnati: but of the facts I know nothing that would be lawful evidence in this case

Answer to Cross Interrogatory 5^th

I am not acquainted with said Howard or his business, or manner of life, or whether married or unmarried

Gabriel Tichenor

Also at the same time and place, came Mrs Margaret Overaker A Witness of lawful age, who being first duly sworn, in answer to the said Interrogatories, as follows

Answer to Complainants First Interrogatory

I am acquainted with Fanny Leiper, the Complainant, but not with the Defendants. I have known her from her infancy, both at Natchez, her birthplace, and at Cincinnatti, where she now lives.

Answer to Complts. 2^nd Interrogatory

Complainants Complexion is that of a very light mulatto, and she about 35 years oldSince I have known her she has been bond and free. She was born at Natchez about the year 1811, and her Mother was then a slave, belonging to my husband, about the year 1831, Complainant was made free.

Answer to Complts 3d Inter.

As stated above the Complainant was made free by me at the instance of a white man, her Reputed Father, who paid me $300. The impression in my mind is that she was furnished with a full and regular Deed of Manumission duly Executedbut of this fact I cannot be certain, It was all done at Natchez.

Answer to Clpts. 4^th Interrog

On a visit to Natchez about 1842 I know that Fanny Leiper occupied the house at Natchez (she had bought). Witness further says that Fanny Leiper lived and made Cincinnatti her home in the years 1845, 1846, &1847.

Answer to the Plffs 5^th Interrog

Slavery or involuntary servitude is not allowed in the State of Ohio, since the Complainant has lived in said State. This is all I know in answer to this Interrogatory

Cross Interrogated

1^st In Answer to Defendants 1^st Cross Interrogatory, the witness says

The said Fanny Leiper was born at Natchez, as above stated in about the year 1811. Her Mother was a Coloured woman, Slave of George Overaker of Natchez and by him devised by will to me.

2^nd Answer to Cross Interrogatory 2d

The said Complainant was intended to be made free in the largest sense of the word. She used that liberty, and her former owner has no claims and has no thought of exacting service from her.

3^rd Answer to Cross Interrogatory 3d

The mother of said Complainant after the birth of said Complainant resided at Natchez and continued there several years, and was emancipated and removed to Cincinnatti, near which City she now livesThe Free papers have been duly recorded at Cincinnatti. The consideration given for her freedom was faithful service already performed.

4^th Answer to Cross Interrogatory 4^th      

I have already stated about all I know in Answer to this questionI have heard much said in regard to the loss of papers and the pains taken by Complainant, to have her papers recorded at Cincinnatti but of the facts I know nothing which could be used as lawful evidence in this case

5^th Answer to Cross Interrogatory 5^th

I am not acquainted with said Howard, or his business, or manner of life, or whether married or not married

Margaret Overaker

The State of Mississippi

Adams County I Robert W. Wood a Justice of the Peace in and for the County of Adams and State of Mississippi, aforesaid, pursuant to the notice in the Case of Fanny Leiper, against Malvina Huffman & others herewith returned annexed, caused William Strickland Jacob Anzer? & Jacob Byers Witnesses for the Complainant, to come before me on the day and at the place specified in said Notice; and having first duly sworn them and each of them, the truth and whole truth to depose, they on their oaths testified as follows

William Strickland, being first produced and Sworn answers, and says as follows, viz:

Question 1^st by Complainant

Are you acquainted with the Complainant and Defendants in this suit, if yea, state how long and where at

Answer

Witness states, that he has been acquainted with them over ten years, at Natchez

Questions by the same

Are you acquainted with the house and Lot in controversy

Answer

Witness states that he is.

Witness being further interrogated says that he has seen the Complainant in the occupancy of the House and lot in Controversy, and it was situated about 70 feet from the house occupied by the Defendant Malvina Huffman, before which time they had lived about 160 feet apart for several years: Witness states that he does not know whether the Complainant was free or not but understood that she was under the Controul of her Father a man by the name of Miller. During a part of the time the Complainant occupied the house in controversy he has seen the Defendant Joseph Winscott frequently at her house, and it was generally understood during a portion of the time, that the Complainant was Kept by him, as his MistressWitness states that the Complainant and Defendant Malvina Huffman lived next door to each other, and that they were acquainted, and Witness has frequently heard them speak of each other

      Witness Cross Interrogated by Defendants Counsel

Witness states that he does not know that the Complainant and Defendant Malvina Hoffman were acquainted with each other in business affairs, but personally acquainted; The Defendant Winscott was Engineer on Steam Boat, on the Mississippi River, while he lived with ComplainantEngineers at that time received as wages per month for their services, from 75$ to 125 or 150$ per monthSecond Engineers received from $75 to 125$ per month, who were capable of running a Boat; and witness thinks at which time the Defendant Winscott was second engineerSaid Winscott at that time had no family as witness knows of, except said Complainant; said Winscott as long ago as 1840 or 1841 claimed the property in controversy, as his and authorized Witness to sell it for him, if he could find a purchaserbut witness found no purchaserWitness frequently saw said Winscott in the House in Controversy, and he appeared to be at home there.

When said Winscott authorized Witness as before stated to sell said property for him, Witness understood from said Winscott, that said property had cost him some four or five hundred Dollars.

Complainant by her counsel objects to what Witness understood from said Winscott

Witness re-examined by Complainants Counsell

Witness states that he never communicated to Complainant that he was authorized by Winscott to sell said property nor he does not know whether the Complainant was in the possession of the property at the time or not, and that he does not know who built the house in controversy and further the dopenent saith not

Sworn & subscribed before me this 20^th Dec 1850

Robt Wood, JP Wm Strickland

Jacob Crizer being next produced and sworn, answers and says as follows, viz.

Witness being interrogated states, that he has known the Complainant some 15 or 16 years, and has known the Defendant Malvina Hoffman for a longer periodWitness further states that he is acquainted with the property in controversy, and that when occupied by Complainant the Defendant Malvina Hoffman resided on the adjoining Lot. Witness states that during the time Complainant occupied by property in Controversy, witness carried on a shop not far from said property, and during which time, understood she was the owner of said property, and that he never heard of anyone else claiming it during that time

Defendants by their Counsel objects to what Witness understood, as to Complainant being the owner of the property

Witness states that the complainant all the time he knew her, deported herself as a free woman of color.

Witness Cross Examined by Defendants Cousel

Witness has no actual knowledge that the said Complainant during the time above spoken of was bond or free. Witness has no actual knowledge of the ownership of the property by Complainant, but in saying that he understood she was the owner, he understood so from her her being in possession of the property and her declarations

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 20^th December, 1850

Robt Wood, JP Jacob Crizer

Jacob Byers being next produced and Sworn, Answers and says as follows viz

Witness being Interrogated by Complainants Counsel states that he is acquainted with the Complainant and defendants, except defendant Joseph Winscott that he has been acquainted with the Complainant since the year 1833, and with the Defendant Malvina Huffman since about 1835 or 1836. Witness states that he knows the House in Controversy and have known it ever since it was being built. Witness further states, that the Carpenters Work of said House was done in part by Neibert & Gemmell and in part by Bryant & Luke, and the brick work in part by Daniel Lippencott, he built the chimney and the piers, Witness thinksNeibert & Gemmel and Bryant & Luke are all Dead, and Daniel Lippencott lives in New Jersey near the City of PhiladelphiaThe Clerk of Neibert and Gemmel in June 1834? Was William Hoontz, Witness is acquainted with his hand writing, having seen him write, and have examined the papers hereto annexed Marked No 1 and recognizes the signature thereto as the hand writing of said William KoontzWitness was also acquainted with the hand writing of Jacob Bryant of the firm of Bryant & Luke, having seen him write, and have examined the paper hereto annexed Marked No 2. And recognizes the signature thereto as the handwriting of said Jacob Bryant, Witness is also acquainted with the hand writing of D.W. Lippincott, having seen write, and have examined the paper hereto annexed Marked No 3, and recognizes the same as the handwriting of said D.W. Lippincott, Witness further states, that ever since he has known the Complainant, she always deported herself as a free person of colour and was so recognized in Natchez. Witness further states that during the time he was assessor of the Taxes of the City of Natchez, the property in Controversy was given in and assessed as the property of Complainant Witness was assessor from about 1838 to 1844 during all which time, witness never heard of any one else claiming said property. Mr Gemmell of the firm of Neibert & Gemmell, during the time said building was being erected told witness that Complainant had employed him to do the work and had paid him.

Defendants by their Counsel objects to Witness’s Statement of what said Gemmell told him as above. Witness further states that during the time he assessed said property, the reputed Mother of Complainant lived with her, he does not recollect what her name was

Witness Cross interrogated by Defendants Counsel, states Witness knows nothing of the actual Condition of the Complainant, whether bond or free. The Defendant Winscott did not live in Natchez from 1838 to 1841, while witness was assessor, so far as Witness knowsWitness has examined the interlineation in the paper No 1 signed by W Koontz, namely 1834, June 10&--and does not recognize it to be the hand writing of said W Koontz though it might beWitness thinks the house in the lot in controversy was built some where in 1834 or 1835 to the best of witnesses recollection

Sworn to & subscribed before me this 20^th day of Dec 1850

Robt Wood, JP Jacob Byers

Page 94 of documents lists receipts from Fanny to carpenters, bricklayers, etc for work & materials ($430)

…Witness (Valentine Boyer) states that Complainant occupied the property in controversy during the several years he was Tax Collector as aforesaid, and thinks for some time afterwards, but does not recollect how long, and he never heard of any Person other than said Complainant claiming the property during that time. Complainant is a bright mulatto woman and has always deported herself as a free woman since witness has known her, which was some years before witness commenced to be Tax CollectorComplainant left Natchez about five years ago, but does not know of his own knowledge, to what place she went

This Direct examination reduced to writing by Defendants Solicitor at the request of Complainants Solicitor

Cross Examined by Defts

Witness has no knowledge personally of the actual condition of Complainant whether bond or freeWitness is not acquainted with the Defendant Joseph Winscott and has no recollection of having ever seen him Does not know whether the Defendant Joseph Winscott owns the property in controversy or not, don’t know of Fanny Leiper owning or claiming the property only from her paying taxes on it, & finding it on his Book. He has never had any actual knowledge of the title of the propertyWhen witness says Complainant paid the Taxes on the property, he means to say that she handed him the money, he does not know where she got it from or any thing about that, or whether it was her own money or whose elses money. Witness as Tax Collector never enquired who were the owners of property, but called upon such as were assessedDoes not know that the Complainant was a woman of any means, or that she had any sources of income, does not know anything about themAs far as Witness knows, Complainant was not in possession of any meansHe knew very little about her or the property all he knows was when he went for taxes

This cross examination is reduced to writing by Complts Solicitor at the request of Defts Solicitor Sworn to and Subscribed before me this 26^th December, 1850

Robt Wood, JP Val Boyer

The State of Mississippi

Adams County I, Robert W. Wood, a Justice of the Peace in and for the County of Adams aforesaid, pursuant to the annexed agreement, in the case of Fanny Leiper against Malvina Huffman et al, herewith returned annexed causes? Robert C. Evans, and Miss Eliza Evans Witnesses for the Complainant, to come before me and having first duly sworn them and each of them the truth and whole truth to depose, they as their oaths testified as follows viz

Interrogatory 1^st

Deponents are acquainted with Complt have known her from Childhoodabout the year 1831 she was hired by us from Margaret Overaker, and continued about 12 months in our service

2^nd

Depon. Eliza Evans saw the Complt. In Cincinnatti within the present year living as a free woman. Sometime between the years 1832 and 1835 Deponts set out from Natchez on the Steam Boat Tippecanoe for Louisville, and on Board said Boat was the Complt. She told Depts at the time that her object in leaving Natchez was to proceed to Cincinnatti to obtain her free papers. Depts having previously heard from their Aunt Margaret Overaker that she had made a sale of Complt to a certain J.S. Miller of Adams County Missi for some very small consideration, with the express understanding that he J Miller, should proceed as soon as practicable to free Complt had no doubt at the time of the truth of Complts statements, when she told them she was authorized to go up the river by said Miller. Depnts still believe that Complts statements were true

3d

Complt was born a slave her mother at the time of her (complts) birth belonged to George, husband of Margaret OverakerFanny Leiper continued the property of Marg. Overaker, or her daughter Maria up to the time, when she was sold as stated above to J.S. Miller. Depts do not know that said Miller after his purchase of Complts knew of her leaving Natchez to proceed to Cincinnatti, but from our knowledge of the terms as which she was sold, as told us by Marg. Overaker. Depts were satisfied at the time, that she was going to Cincinnatti by the consent and under the direction of said J.S. Miller

4^th

Hannah Frey was the name of the Mother of Complt Depnts are unable to say whether she lived with Complt after they were freed.

The answer to Cross interrogations are embraced in answers above

Robt. G. Evans

Eliza Evans

…1^st day of January, 1851

And on the 3d day of January 1851 the following affidavit of S. Sanders Jr. was filed in this cause, to wit:

The affidavit of S. Sanders Jr. who states that, the complainant resides in the City of Cincinnatti, that she is poor & illiterate and has not from both causes been able to have this cause as speedily prepared for trial as should have been

He states that he has since the last term of this Court obtained the Depositions of the Witness Mrs Overraker, but not that of Miller & Howard, mentioned in said Interrogatories, who affiant is informed resides in Cincinnattithat said Howard will prove as afiant believes, that said Winscott the defendant did not ever claim or occupy the House in controversy, at any time for five years or more prior to the time of the removal of the complainant to Ohio in 1845 That said Miller, a Witness is informed, will prove that said Fanny was in Cincinnatti as far back as the year 1834, acting and claiming her freedom as a free woman of colour

That said Deposition of Mrs Overaker was not received until a few days before the meeting of this court, at the present time, upon reading which, there are matters disclosed which discloses the importance and necessity of taking the testimony of others Witnessess, so as to receive a fair trial in this cause. Affiant states that he has been informed and believes the “white man” named in the Deposition of Mrs Ovaeraker is one J.S. Miller residing in Adams County in this State who will prove as affiant has been informed & believes, that he furnished the Complainant the money to procure her emancipation and caused her to be sent to Cincinnatti for the purpose of perfecting itAffiant states that he caused Interrogatories to be prepared for taking the Depositions of Robert C. & Miss Eliza Evans of this County which were Crossed by Defts Counsel, but which Depositions wereto irregularly taken as appears up its face as to subject them to exceptions, and to be suppressed, besides they are taken jointly instead of separately, written by one of the parties and not examined by the justice separately, and does not answer fully either the direct or Cross interrogatories, and does not disclose the important matter which affiant believes they will prove, that the Complainant was in the State of Ohio prior to the year A.D. 1835acting then with the knowledge and consent of her former & last previous owner Mrs Overaker, acting as a free person of colour And that Complainant cannot safely go to trial without retaking the testimony of said WitnessesAffiant further states that he believes that he will be able to procure the testimony of said Witness by the next term of this court and although he has not been able to find the paper referred to in his affidavit made at the last term of this Court, he still hopes to be able to do so by next Court. Afffiant states that Defendants are in the possession of the proeprty in controversy and that the object of a continuance is not for delay merely, but to enable her to obtain a fair trialAffiant further states that since the taking of the deposition of William Strickland in this cause he has discovered that said Strickland will prove specifically about the times when said Winscott lived with Complainant, which he, Affiant, believes is important to a just understanding of the merits of this case He further states that although he had made repeated applications to said Evans/Robert C. as to what he knew about the matter in controversy, that he never discovered or knew that said Evans went on the same Boat up the River, between 1832 & 1835 until within the last six daysthat although he has called as many as three times he has never been able to see and converse with Miss Eliza Evans as to what she knew about the matterthat said Complainant has no other person to prepare this suit for trial, but affiant who is her solicitor in this suit

Sworn to before me in Open Court

Jany 3/51

ES Russell, Clk

And on the 4^th day of January 1851 being at the December Term A.D 1850 of Said Southern District Chancery Court the following Order was entered on Record in this Cause to wit:

..This cause coming on to be heard upon motion of Complainant, to retake the Deposition of Robert C. Evans, Eliza Evans and William Strickland, upon reasonable notice to Defendants or their Solicitor, it is ordered that the same be sustained, at the costs of Complainant

…And on the 25^th day of June 1851 the following Deposition of Wm Strickland was filed in this cause, and opened in open Court same day.

The Defendants or their Solicitor J.M. Davis Exqr. Will please take notice that I will attend at the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Adams County in the City of Natchez on Tuesday the 24^th day of the Present Month, between the hours of eight O’Clock AM and Seven O’ Clock PM of that day and then and there proceed to take the Deposition of William Strickland, a Witness of Complainant, by leave of the Court first had and obtained, which Deposition when taken to be read as evidence on behalf of Complt on the trial of said Cause=Natchez June 5^th 1851

I Robert W. Wood, a Justice of the peace, in and for the County of Adams and State of Mississippi aforesaid and also Commissioner in Chancery, pursuant to the notice to retake the Deposition of William Strickland in the Case of Fanny Leiper, against Malvina Huffman et al, herewith returned annexed, caused William Strickland a witness for the Complainant to come before me on the day and between the hours, and at the place specified in said notice, and having first duly sworn him the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to depose, he on his oath testified as follows

Witness states that the last time he knew the Defendant Winscott to live with the Complainant was in the year 1837 or 1838Witness being further interrogated says that the conversation detailed with the defendant Winscott as mentioned in his former deposition, was had in New Orleans Louisiana the latter part of 1840 or in the early part of 1841.

Witness Crossexamined by Defts Counsel

States, when witness says in his direct examination that the last time he knew the defendant Winscott that the last time he knew the defendant Winscott to live with the Complainant, was in 1837 or 1838, he means merely that he did not know the defendant Winscott to live with her after that time, he might have done so without Witness Knowledge: Wm Strickland…

And on the 26^th day of June 1851 the following Exceptions were filed in this Cause, to wit:

Complainant excepts to the statement of Witness Strickland, drawn out on Defts interrogatory as to the declarations of Deft Winscott and excepts to the Statements of all witnesses, cross interrogated by Defts who declare hearsays to the prejudice of Complt, or opinions of such witnesses to her prejudice

Sanders for Complainant

[Note: I skipped transcribing the questions to be asked the Evans, just the answers]:

I Robert W. Wood a Justice of the Peace in and for the County of Adams and State of Mississippi aforesaid, and also Commissioner in Chancery pursuant to an order of court to retake the Depositions of Robt C. Evans & Eliza Evans, in the case of Fanny Leiper against Malvina Huffman & al caused Robert C. Evans and Eliza Evans, Witnesses for the Complainant to come before me on the day and at the place, to wit, to come before me on this 24^th day of June A.D. 1851 in the City of Natchez, and having first duly Sworn them and each of them, the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to depose them and each of them as their oaths testified as follows,

Robert C. Evans being first produced and sworn answered and says as follows viz

Answer to the 1^st Int

Witness states that the Complainant Fanny Leeper has never been held in Slavery since she went up the river between the years 1832 & 1835, nor previous thereto, since the year 1831.

Answer to 2^nd Int.

Witness states that he is mistaken in the statement contained in his first deposition that his Aunt Mrs Margaret Overaker had made a sale of Complainant to JS Miller of Adams County Mississippi, since which time he has learnt from his said Aunt Margaret Overaker that said Miller advanced her three hundred Dollars to assist said Margaret in emancipating said Complainantbut that there was no sale made of her. Witness further states that he knows that the Complainant Fanny Leiper, went to Cincinnatti Ohio, with the assent of said Margaret Overaker, to perfect the freedom and that he heard said Margaret Overaker tell her in 1831, or thereabouts that she wanted her to go to Cincinnatti as soon as she could to perfect her freedom and that George Overaker the husband of said Margaret Overaker, died about 10 years previous to 1831, and by some family arrangement said Fanny fell to said Margaretsaid Margaret having the entire control of her until she emancipated her, as he has heard her often declare.

Answer to Cross Ints

Answer to 4^th Cross Ints

Witness states that her former owner Mrs Margaret Overaker renounced all control over her after the year 1831 or thereabouts, and she went at large and deported herself as a free womanWitness does not pretend to pronounce upon her legal condition, but that he does know prior to the year 1834 he has frequently heard Mrs Margaret Overaker say, that she had emancipated her, but he has never seen the papers of emancipation and he does not know whether they were legal or not

Answer to 5^th Cross Int

Witness states, that the Complainant appeared to be mistress of her own actions, free from the control of any one, and from which and the causes before stated, he supposed her to be free

Answer to 6^th Cross Int

Witness states that he does not know what time she returned, or how long she was absent, but that, Witness returned himself in the fall of that year,, and that he recollected of seeing her some year or so after his return, at Natchez

Answer to 7^th Cross Int.

Witness states that he does not know anything

Robt. C. Evans

Miss Eliza Evans being next produced and sworn, answers and says as follows

Answer to 1^st Intg

Witness states, that she first saw the Complainant in the City of Cincinnatti, Ohio, a few days after she landed at Louisville Kentucky, as stated in her first deposition=her memory is refreshed on this subject by a visit to Cincinnatti last year, and a letter recently received from that place, which has so refreshed her memory that she now recollects that the complainant was in Cincinnatti in the year of 1834, and that she knows that she went there for the purpose of effecting her emancipation, as she learnt from said Fanny and Mrs Margaret Overaker before and after that time

Answer to 2^nd Int

Witness states that said Fanny never remained a slave after she returned from Cincinnatti Ohio, she had been emancipated witnesses Aunt Margaret Overaker before said Fanny went to Cincinnatti, as before stated, and that she never was held as a slave by any one after that time, but has since deported herself as a free woman of colour

Answer to 3d Int

Witness was mistaken in her former Deposition, in stating that her aunt, Margaret Overaker had made a sale of Complainant to JS. Miller of Adams CountyUpon enquiry she has learnt, and has no doubt the fact is, that J.S. Miller advanced her Aunt Margaret Overaker Three Hundred Dollars to assist her in emancipating said Complainant

Cross Ints.

Answer to 1^st X Int

Witness states that she cannot add anything to her statements, to her deposition in Chief

Answer to 2^nd Int

Witness states that she does not undertake to say that she knows the actual and legal emancipation of said Complainant, or that she is legally freeshe never saw any Deed of emancipation, under the Laws of the State of Mississippi, all she knows she derived from her Aunt Margaret Overaker, and what she has seen as before stated.

Answer to 3d X Int

Witness states that she means by saying that said Fanny had deported herself as a free Woman of Coler, that she seemed to have the absolute Control of her own time and person, without being subject to the Control of any one else, she does not undertake to say, that she was actually and absolutely emancipated, she only knows that her former owner told her that she was emancipated prior to 1834.

Answer to 4^th Intg

Witness states that her former Owner Mrs Margaret Overaker renounced all control over her after the year 1831 or thereabouts, and she went at large and deported herself as a free womanWitness does not pretend to pronounce upon her legal condition, but that she does know prior to the year 1834, she has frequently heard Mrs Margaret Overaker say that she had emancipated her, but she has never seen the papers of emancipation, and she does not know whether they were legal or not.

Answer to 5^th X Int

Witness states that the Complainant appeared to be mistress of her own actions, free from the control of any one, and from which and the causes before stated, she supposed her to be free.

Answer to 6^th Int

Witness states that she does not know what time she returned, or how long she was absent but that witness returned herself in the fall of that year and that she recollects of seeing her some year or so after her return, at Natchez

Answer to 7^th Int.

Witness states that she does not know anything

Eliza Evans

The outcome of this whole thing was that the defendants’ counsel protested the depositions and labeled them hearsay and,

And on the 30^th day of June 1851, being at the June term A.D 1851 of said Southern District Chancery Court the following Final Decree was made and entered of Record in this Cause, to wit:

This cause coming on to be finally heard upon the Bill answer Exhibits and proof therein and the same having been fully argued as well by the Counsel for the Defendants, as for Complainant and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court here, that said Complainant is not entitled to the relief or to any relief in said Bill prayed for it is therefore ordered adjudged and Decreed that said Bill of Complaint be dismissed at the cost of Complainant to be Taxed.

Dated and signed this 30^th June A.D. 1851

J.M. Smiley

And then Fanny went on to appeal to The High Court of Error and Appeals of Mississippi

Fanny Leiper v. Malvina Huffman, et al., 1851

Mississippi High Court of Error and Appeals

Case #6185

[Note: This is EXTREMELY garbled as I have put this document on the back burner for 4 years now, and I am out of sorts with many of the details. In 1998, I authorized the Mississippi Department of Archives to copy the court case of Fanny Leiper, and this is what they sent me. It seems to be out of order, with some info possibly not included.]

….

[interrupted paragraph at the beginning that I am not going to include.]

Brief: The right of the Complainant to the relief prayed for in the bill is dependent upon the facts put in issue between the parties.

First question-did the Complainant with her own means, purchase and pay for the property in controversy and was the name of Joseph Winscott inserted in the deed jointly with the Complainant’s name, merely as trustee for her benefit? Or otherwise did Joseph Winscott furnish the means to pay for the property and become the sole owner thereof and the Complainant his tenant at sufferance?

This question must be solved by the proof in the cause-

John R. Wells, witness, states that he sold the lot to Fanny Leiper for $175 and she paid to him $100 in April 1834 and the balance at sundry times before the execution of the deed. That to the best of his recollection the name preceding Fanny Leiper in the deed was left entirely blank at the time he executed it in order that she might choose her own associate and have it filled up at any future time, as she, Fanny Leiper, understood she could not hold property in her own name in Mississippi. That she consulted him as to who would be a proper person to insert in the deed and who would not take advantage of her (document’s underlining, not mine). The name of Winscott was not mentioned at the time, nor did he ever hear the name or know such person at the time. That he delivered the possession of the lot to Fanny Leiper and in 1840(?) when last he saw it, was still in her possession and he knew of no transfer of it whatever-that he never knew Winscott till the year 1838 or 39 never heard Winscott say anything with respect to the property or of Fanny Leiper and Winscott never bought any property of him and no person ever paid him any money from Winscott-nor did he ever pay Witness any himself-of Winscott, witness knows nothing in the sale, nor did he know him for several years afterwards.

Fleming Wood, witness, states that he filled up the blanks in the original printed deed from Wells to Leiper & Winscott-but does not recollect whether at the instance of Wells or Fanny Leiper-He recollects that Fanny Leiper told him she had paid for the land and had been advised, and perhaps wanted witness’s advice as to whether she could hold said property in her own right. The witness concluded to have said deed made out in the name of Winscott and herself.

Jacob Byers moves that the house on the lot was built, the carpenter’s work in part by

Neibert & Gemmell and in part by Bryant & Luke, who are all dead-and the brick work by D.M. Lippincott-He moves three receipts-given by them to Fanny Leiper for payment for the work and states that Mr. Gemmell told witness that Fanny Leiper had employed him to do the work and had paid himthat he was assessor of taxes in the City of Natchez from 1838 to 1844 and the property was given as the property of Fanny Leiper and during all that time he never heard of any one else claiming the property. Page 92

Jacob Crizer states that he had a shop?? Not far from the lot in controversy for 15 or 16 years and knew that Fanny Leiper occupied the lot and always understood she was the owner of it and never knew of any one else claiming during that time Page 91

Valentine Boyer, proves, that Fanny Leiper paid the taxes from 1836-1844 inclusive on the lot as her own. That she occupied it during the time and never heard of any one else claiming it during that time-page 95.

Samuel R. Hammett, proves that Fanny Leiper occupied the lot from 1838 till left Natchez for Cincinatti as her own property- page 34

What proof is ther in the record that Joseph Winscott ever paid anything for the property-was ever in possession of it-contracted for the purchase of the lot or the erection of the house and other improvements thereon? None, but the single witness, Wm. Strickland-he says till the year 1837 or ’38 Joseph Winscott lived with Fanny Leiper on the lot and appeared to be at home there-but he never saw Winscott there after that time but told witness in New Orleans in 1840 or 1841-that he owned the lot and it cost him four or five hundred dollars and wanted witness to sell it for him-see his depos. Page 88. and amendment thereto page 107-In this deposition we have the only testimony that Joseph Winscott ever knew prior to 1845 that his name ever was inserted in the deed-from the testimony of the case I feel confident that Joseph Winscott never claimed any ownership over the property prior to 1845. That he did not know the title was in his name even-and Wm Strickland is mistaken when he says, Joseph Winscott told him so in 1840 or 1841 in New Orleans-The witness shows that his recollection is very inaccurate as to dates. But whether correct or not is immaterial to the issue-it is conclusively shown by the proof that Fanny Leiper was the bonafide purchaser of the property and the name of Joseph Winscott was inserted as trustee in the deed for her benefit.

Second question, did Malvina Huffman and Oliver L. Bemis know how and for what purpose the title was taken in name of Joseph Winscott? And was Malvina Huffman so situated and in circumstances in her relations to Fanny Leiper as to be apprized of the title as charged in the Bill of Complainant?

The defts-Malvina Huffman & O.L. Bemis virtually admit they had full knowledge of the title, in their joint answer with said Winscott-For they ever?? As a fact-within their own knowledge, that the name of Fanny Leiper was inserted in the deed to gratify a whim merely-when she was a slave and could not hold property-that the whole was paid for by Winscott and that Fanny was a mere tenant at sufferance of Winscott and they contracted with Winscott in 1845-with a full knowledge of his title to the property and of his right to sell the same to them or her-and virtually admit they procured the title from Winscott in the manner stated in the Bill but deny it was in fraud upon Complainant as she had no right or title to the property, being a slave and having paid no part of the purchase money therefore-

If the answer did not admit the fact, the proof clearly establishes it.

It is clearly shown by the proof that Joseph Winscott was a mere trustee in the deed for the benefit of Fanny Leiper and his conveyance in 1845 without her knowledge and consent to Malvina Huffman, who must have known and did know of the interest of Fanny Leiper in the property was fraudulent and void and the Complainant is entitled to the relief asked for. Unless she was a slave at the time the deed from Wells to her was executed, if a slave at that time, her Mistress, Mrs. Overacre, did not subsequently, and before suit brought, relinquish to her a free woman, all her, the said Mrs. Overacre’s, right title and interest in said property

Gabriel Tichenor states Complainant was set free in 1831, and thinks she was furnished with a full and regular deed of manumission, duly executed-which he thinks he wrote & witnessed-page 84

She was intended to be made free in the largest sense of the term, page 85

Mrs Overaker states, she set her free in 1831 and never since has had any claim or any thought of exacting any service from her-That Fanny Leiper occupied a house in Natchez in 1842, she Fanny had bought-page 86

Robert C. Evans states he went up the river with Complainant prior to 1834 and saw her in Cincinatti, wher he understood she established her freedom

Eliza C. Evans states the same fact-the witnesses-Welss-Wood-Crizer-Boyer-Hammett-Byers-and Strickland state she was reputed to be a free woman while in Natchez-

The proof of the freedom of Complainant in 1834 I think is clearly established. If not at that time a free woman but the slave of Mrs. Overaker and the beneficial Interest in the property in controversy was in Mrs. Overaker as her mistress-in 1845 when Complainant moved to Cincinnati she became free-and Mrs. Overaker at that time, as shown by her deposition, relinquished all claims to Fanny and the property and the beneficial interest of Mrs. Overaker, by virtue of her ownership of Fanny in 1834, posted in 1845 to the Complainant and the title of C. to the property in 1847, when this suit was brought as made out.

Next stapled section (not sure which came first, this or the preceding one, but that one was first with the note attached to it)

The Complainant, claiming to be a free woman of color alleges in her bill that in 1834 she purchased a vacant lot in the city of Natchez from one John Wells for the sum of $175 and took immediate possession of it and commenced improvements upon it and erected a dwelling house upon it at an expense of $1500. That she resided on the lot till 1845, that she paid improvements out of her own means, that she occupied and held the lot and improvements as her own exclusive property from 1834 to May 1845 when she moved to Cincinnati Ohio where she has since resided. That the property was assessed and she paid the taxes on it as her own property. That when she left for Cincinnati she appointed Samuel R. Hammett her agent to collect the rents and lease the [The rest of this particular paper seems to be missing]

Apr. 23, 1849 (Johnson Diary)Today Fanny was run off [Is this Fanny Leiper? This is right around the time that depositions were being taken in her case]

Lemon

Mary Jane Lemon, Police Board Records, February 1842

Adams County Chancery Court

Police Board Records

P. 331

February Term 1842

Mary Jane Lemon, a free woman of Colour of Mulatto complexion, aged about forty Two years and [Blank] feet, [Blank] inches in height, having Satisfied the Board that She was of good character and honest deportment; It was thereupon Ordered by the court that she be licensed to remain in this State pursuant to the Statute in this behalf

Letty

Freedom of Letty, 1820

Adams County Chancery Court

Deed Book L

P. 124

The Record of the Freedom of Letty

Pleas before the Honorable John P Oldham Judge of the Nelson Circuit Court at the Court house in Bardstown on Thursday the twenty ninth day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty and of the commonwealth the twenty eighth.

Be it remembered that therefore heretowit, on the twenty eighth day of March in the year eighteen hundred and twenty Zephimiah Webster for the benefit of Letty a woman of colour by Dabney ? Cosbey Esquire brought and filed in the Clerk’s office of the Nelson Circuit Court his Bill in Chancery against Nathanial Wood? Which Bill reads in these words Towit. To the Honor ? Jno. P Oldham Judge of the Nelson Circuit Court in Chancery ?? Your Orator Zephimiah Webster for himself and in behalf of Letty a free woman of colour would state to your honor that the first day of January 1805 he purchased of a certain Thom Harrison the aforesaid Letty in the State of Maryland and

p. 125

took the bill of sale for her which is here shown to your honor for inspection and will be filed if necessary in due time which bill of sale acknowledges the said Letty free on this first day of January 1830 at which time your orator avers she is free and in this year and for the aforesaid length of time your orator purchased her. Now your orator states that in the year he migrated to the state of Kentucky from the state of Maryland and brought with him said Letty that sometime after he sold said Letty to a certain Richard Phillips of Springfield until the first day of January 1830. Your orator would further state that sometime after this said Phillips sold said Letty to a certain Raphael Lancaster and your Orator at the request of said Phillips gave to said Lancaster his bill of sale for said Letty which is perfected that she is to be free on the first day of January 1830 and your Orator states that she was sold by said Phillips to said Lancaster until the first day of January 1830 and no longer. Now your orator states further that sometime after this said Lancaster sold said Letty to a said Nathaniel B. Wood whom your orator makes a defendant to this bill upon what terms and conditions this last sale took place. Your orator is not positively informed but believes upon the same as the preceding but your Orator charges the fact that said Negro was sold by said Lancaster to said Wood for the purpose of taking to the state of Louisiana to sell again. Your orator further charges the said Wood will if not restrained by your honor to the said Letty to New Orleans or Natchez in the state of Louisiana and there make sale of her and will thereby defeat all prospects of her freedom by removing her so far from this state where the evidence of her freedom exists. Now may it please your honor, the premises considered to injoin and prohibit said Wood and all others from removing said Letty without the limits of the state of Kentucky and for this purpose would it please your honor to compel said Wood to give bond and security in such Sum as your honor

may think sufficient to restrain him from removing said Letty himself or having it done or suffering it to be done from the State of Kentucky and grant all such other and further relief as this case before your honor equitably considered requires, and your orator will ever pray &c.

            D.C. Cosbey for cmplt.

Nelson Circuit Dct.

28^th March 1820

Sworn to before

Jno. R Oldham

p. 126

Freedom of Letty

Your Orator would further State that he fears if said Letty is now Removed out of this State she will entirely loose the benefit of the Testimony of her right to freedom, he also fears the testimony itself will be lost, he therefore in addition to his fervent prayer prays that said Deft and all others be restrained from removing said Letty without the limits of this state untill the Testimony aforesaid can be perpetuated, he also prays a perpetuation of the evidence aforesaid. Your orator will ever pray & C            D.C. Cosby Complt

The Clerk of the Nelson Circuit Court will indorse on the subpoena to be issued in this Case that the within named Nathaniel B. Wood & all others be enjoined and restrained from removing the within named negro girl Letty without the limits of the state of Kentucky untill the further order of this Court on the complainant of Zephemiah Webster entering into bond in the Clerks Office of the Nelson Circuit in the penalty of four hundred Dollars with Dabney C. Cosby his security conditioned to pay and sattisfy said Wood all such damages he may sustain in consequence of his being improperly restrained from taking the aforesaid Negro Letty without the limits of this State. Given under my hand as circuit Judge at Bards Town this 28^th March 1820

            Jno P. Oldham

Whereupon the following Subpoena in Chancery with Injunction issued, to wit.

The Commonwealth of Kentucky to the Sheriff of Nelson County Gretting: we command you to summon Nathaniel B. Wood to appear before the Judge of our Nelson Circuit Court at the Courthouse in Bardstown on the 9^th day of March Term Instant to answer a bill in Chancery Exhibited against him by Zephamiah Webster for the benefit of Letty a woman of colour and this he shall in no qisc omit under the Penalty of one hundred pound and have then there this writ. Witness James Slaughter Jr Clerk of our said Court this 28^th day of March 1820 and in the 28^th year of the Commonwealth

            James Slaughter Jr

The above named Nathaniel B Wood and all, others concerned are to be injoined and restrained from removing a certain Negro Slave named Letty (in the above mentioned Bill) without the State of Kentucky until the further order of this court. Att: James Slaughter Jr. CLK Upon which subpoena the Sheriff made the following endorsement, to wit, “Executed March 28^th 1820, Henry Gore S.N.C. and now on this day to wit, at a Court held for the County and Circuit of Nelson at the Courthouse in Bardstown on Wednesday the twenty ninth day of

p. 127

Freedom of Letty

March in the year last aforesaid mentioned “Came the parties by their Attornies and this defendant produced in Court his answer herein which on his motion is ordered to be filed. Which answer read, in this words to wit, The answer of Nathaniel B. Wood to a bill in Chancery Exhibited against him by Zephemiah Webster in the Nelson Circuit Court for and on behalf of a negro named Letty, he answers and says that he admits he purchased her of Raphael Lancaster to hold her as a slave until the year one thousand Eight hundred and thirty, and then she is to be liberated and her increase after this date to 1830 to be slaves forever he admits that she is about twenty seven years of age of ordinary size and black complexion, he admits the statements in said bill not contrary or inconsistent with the statement herein contained and prays to be dismissed

            N. B. Wood

            Carpenter P.Q?

And the parties agree that this suit shall be taken up and tried this Term. “And the Court having inspected the Bill answer and Exhibit filed in this Cause and upon consideration had thereon, It is deemed and ordered that the Bill answer and Exhibit filed in this cause be and are hereby perpetuated as evidence of the said Lettys right of freedom in the year one thousand Eight hundred and thirty and as evidence of the subject matter of said Suit and It is further ordered that said Wood do have recorded in the proper office of the County in which he may sell said negro Letty his title papers shewing her right to freedom in the year 1830 and that her increase to the year 1830 be slaves forever all increase after the year 1830 be entitled to their freedom and on motion of the Defendant It is ordered that the Clerk of this Court make out a transcript of this record immediately.

      Exhibit

January 1^st 1805

Whereas I have on this day sold to Zephemiah Webster a negro Girl called Letty for two hundred dollars the receipt of which I acknowledge for the term of twenty five years: to wit that she shall be free on the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and thirty. I do by these presents acknowledge the aforesaid Girl to be the right property and Estate of the aforesaid Webster his heirs or assigns until the aforesaid time, and do warrant and defend the same. Given under my hand & seal

Witness

Priscilla M Bayles            J Harrison Seal

p. 128

Freedom of Letty

State of Kentucky

Nelson Circuit Dct

       I James Slaughter Jr Clerk of the Court for the District aforesaid do certify that the preceding six pages contain a full true and complete transcript of the record and proceedings had in the suit therein named. In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seal of the said Circuit Court at Bardstown this 29^th day of March 1820

            James Slaughter Jr CLK

[a bit I didn’t transcribe and then….] I Nathl. B Wood do certify that I have sold said Negro Girl to Daniel Hoff to be a slave untill First day of January 1830 and no longer. Give under my hand at Natchez 22 day of May 1820

Witness

Martin H. Wickliff            N.B. Wood

Leurs (Lewis?)

Mary Leurs1 female 24-36 (1840 Natchez census)

Lewis

Mary Lewis1 fpc (2 slaves) (Census of 1816, Adams County)

Mary Lewis1 fpc (2 slaves) (Census of 1818, Adams County)

Lewis, John v. Carter, Daniel, 1812

Historic Natchez Foundation

Box 10

File 61

Adams County ?

The petition of John Lewis now at the Natchez landing respectfully sheweth.

That he is now about thirty years of age & was born of, free parentage, tho black, in the Island of Jamaica in West indies in the Month of March 1782.When he was a lad he served in one of the Kings Regiments of infantry as Drummer. He was thence employed as a Cabbin boy on board the Holland Brig of Newburn North Carolina, William King, Capt. Thomas Lovet, Mate, & which belonging to W. Mazin, a Baptist preacher.He was afterwards employed on Board the Schooner Hannah bound from America to Jamaica, but who discharged her cargo at S. Pierre in Dominique; after this he followed the sea in capacity of cook & sailor for several years, and went three voyages to the Coast of Africa, and two to the East Indies. after [sic] this he went on board the Brig Aurora of London, then at Jamaica, Thompson Capt. and Sailed for London, in Great Britain; being short of provising they launched at Cork, in Ireland; when she got into port at London he left the vessel and took lodgings on land, at a Guinea per week. He was then taken by a press gang, and carried on board the Enterprize, a King’s ship, and was soon afterwards taken to the big Noah, and put on board the “Lanswine” (?) a guard ship, lying in the downs, from thence

2nd page

he was sent on board a Sailing Ship “the Amiable.” where he served upwards of two years as a main top mast sailor.The Ship being in Leed Road, he with four others deserted from the Ship and swam ashore; from thence he travelled over land to Dundee in Scotland; He then went on board the “Morning Star” of Boaston Thomas Hill Capt. Jn. Reed first mate, bound for the United States, and landed at Charleston in South Carolina, the first day of March 1811. This vessel had broken the Embargo laws of the United States and was seized as a prize by the Schooner “Plowboy,” an armed vessel of the United States. He, then had, to look out for employment on land, and hired himself to John Alford in Charleston for a year, at nine dollars per month; having staid there about ten weeks, the said John Alford pretended he had or was to get two good race horses in Kentucky which he wanted brought in, in time for the fall Races; and for that purpose sent with William Jones to Kentucky; that after the said Jones, arrived at Mays lick in Mason County, in the State, of Kentucky, he told your petitioner that he had bought him, of the said John Alford in Charleston and that there was no race horses to be taken on. The said Jones took your petitioner to Lexington, Kentucky, to sell; but owing to the interference of Henry Clay Esqu. He was not told, &

3rd page

the said Jones took him back to Mays Lick, & under pretence of getting the Race horses, to take to Charleston, and disclaiming all title to your petitioner as a slave. From Mays Lick he was again taken away and conveyed thro’ a bye road, to Frankfort, Shelbyville, Middleton, Louisville and to the mouth of Salt River, by the said Jones; who at each of those places, attempted to sell him as a slave, but was always presented by your petitioners telling the people he was a free man. After he arrived at the mouth of Salt River he was put in charge of Abram Reed, who secreted your petitioner in the woods during their stay there . That after your petitioner had been this [sic] removed by the said Jones Mr. (?) H. Clay hearing of it wrote to Gabriel J Johnson Esq an attorney at Louisville, who issued process against the said Jones, and finding himself pursued by an officer ran off. That after a boat was got in readiness your petitioner was delivered in charge by the said Reed to Danl. Carter who brought him to Natchez where still detains him, and is attempting to sell him as a slave contrary to his natural right and the Laws of the United States. Wherefore he prays the mercy of this Court, against the said Danl. Carter, and that by the Judge of this Court he may be discharged & c. Jany. 14th. 1812

                  J. L. Minor Counsel

                  J. Thompson Assigned

                              By Court

[Gains freedom]

Lewis, Bradford and Benjamin v. Clark John et al, 1822

Historic Natchez Foundation

Box 13

File 39

Pursuant to this writ I have the Body of Bradford before your honor he is detained in custody only for the purpose of Executing this writ

            John Forsyth Shff

Honl W. Leake      27^th Jany 1821

1821

Jany the 27^th

The within named Bradford was this day brough [sic] before me and it appearing that he claimed his freedom from Wright Clark and David Slater, and the Sd Clark & Slater refusing to give bond and security as required by the act of assembly in that case made & provided the Sd Bradford having entered into recognizance with Sam.l Thornberry and Chancy Pettibone his Security according to law he is discharged from custody until the next Superior Court for Adams County.

      Walter Leake

To the honorable Walter Leake esq. judge of the second Judicial District for the State of Mississippi

The Petition of Benjamin a freeman would respectfully represent unto your honor that he is at present in the illegal confinement of Right Clark, in the City of Natchez. and therefore prays that your honor will order and direct. that your Petitioner may have the benefit of the writ of Habeas corpus and your Petitioner as is duly bound will pray

      R Hockton Petitioners

            Attorney

Let a Habeas corpus issue agreably [sic] to the prayer of the above Petition returnable before me at the Court house for Adams County between the hours of ten Oclock and twelve Oclock of this day the 27^th of January 1821.

            Walter Leake

State of Mississippi &c

Be it remembered that on the 27^th day of January 1821 Personally appeared before the undersigned a Judge of the Supreme & Superior Courts of this State in and for the second judicial district Benjamin Lewis, Bradford Lewis, Samuel Thornberry and Chancey Pettibone--------------------------

And severally acknowledged themselves to owe and be indebted to the State of Mississippi: the Said Benjamin Lewis & Bradford Lewis, in the Sum of two thousand dollars each, and the said Samuel Thornberry & Chancey Pettibone____________________ in the sum of Thirteen hundred and thirty three dollar each; To be levied of their Lands & tenements, goods and Chattels

But nevertheless to be void, if the said Benjamin Lewis and Bradford Lewis shall make their appearance at the next Superior Court for Adams Cunty to be held on the the [sic] third Monday in may next, and prosecute their Claim for freedom, against Wright Clark and David Slater, whom they alledges [sic] illegally holds them in Slavery. and make good to the said Wright Clark & David Slater, all costs and damages which they shall sustain in consequence of their application for their freedom, in case they eventually fail in obtaining the same.

                  Walter Leake (seal)

The State of Mississippi

Adams County

Benjamin Lewis &

Bradford Lewis                  Superior Court Petition for freedom

vs.

John W. Clark

            With the assent of plaintiff and defendant waiving the receipts for commission before the Justice, they being both now present, I have caused to come before me Henry Tooley one of the Justices of the peace for said county George Atkinson to give evidence on the trial of the above cause in behalf of the plaintiffs whose testimony when so taken by the assent of the parties now present is to be read in evidence on the trial thereof. The said witness being first duly sworn deposeth as follows.

That he was acquainted with Bradford Lewis one of the plaintiffs, in Vincennes in the State of Indiana that he has after seen him for in the years 1818 and 1819, during which time the said Bradford lived with Charles m. Clure, and was accounted a free man from common repute, and so far as the deponent can judge acted as a free man

Question by plaintiffIs there any such thing as slavery in the State of Indiana?

Answer. In the said State there is no such thing as slavery.

                                    his

                              George X Atkinson

Sworn to & subscribed before                        mark

Me this 5 March 1821

H. Tooley JP.

Ryan Carter a witness for the plaintiff being first duly sworn deposeth

That he became acquainted with the above plaintiff in the beginning of the year 1819 until the last of November of that yearThat they worked for Charles M. Clurethat the said M. Clure lived near Vincennes, Indiana and that during the said time the said plaintiff

appeared to be free as any other negroes in the said Stateand from general repute was free that they came from the State of Kentucky and were indented servantsRyan Carter

Sworn to & subscribed before

me 5 March 1821

H. Tooley JP.

We agree to [illegible] the regularity of a commission and a [illegible] in this cause but assent that the foregoing depositions may be read, overseeing the power of the? Court to reflect over parts of the deposition as may appear irrelevant

            Hocklon & Thornberry

            Attorneys for Petitioner

            Jno. W. Clark

Justices fee $1.25 pd. For by plaintiffs counsel

                  H Tooley

Two witnesses $2 p.d by counsel

The State of Mississippi

Adams County

Bradford Lewis

&            Petition for freedom

Benjamin Lewis      Adams Superior Court

vs

Clark & Slater            Pursuant to the agreement entered into between Plaintiffs and Defendants that the Deposition of JL Holmes and Jonathan Purcell citizens of Indiana should be taken on the part and behalf of the Plaintiffs in the above ? the necessity of a commission for that purpose I John Baynton a Justice of the Peace in and for the County of Adams have this seventh day of May in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and Twenty one caused to the said witness to come before me at my office in the City of Natchez. and the Petitioners being now present as well their counsel and the said David H Slater one of the Defendants being now present the said Witnesses being first duly sworn JL Hohner deposeth and saith that Bradford Lewis & Benj.n Lewis the plaintiffs were brought into the State of Indiana, Deponent believes they were to serve till the pltffs were thirty one years of age, Deponent has no hesitation in saying the said pltffs were not Slaves for life but were only apprentices Deponent knew the owner of the pltffs in Indiana, the pltffs were born Slaves in Kentucky from whence they were brought to Indiana about the year 1809 Deponent has known the Pltffs ^ residing in the state of Indiana since the year 1809 as Bradford the first named Pltff was left belonged to Charles M. Clure & Benjamin was left to Archibald N. M. Clure?

by his fathers willnot as Slaves but indented apprenticesDeponent States that the Owners of the said Bradford and Benjamin sold only the time they had to serve and not as Slaves ^ as he was informed by their masters who sold them The deponent States that the two boys now present he recognizes as the two persons he speaks of them & they the pltffs in the above Suit---Deponent further ^ states that the said Bradford & Benjamin did not leave the State of Indiana with their own Consent but were brought off forcibly Deponent also States that aforesaid Bradford and Benjamin have lived in the State of Indiana until the fall of 1820 during of which time deponent knew them & knows they are not SlavesDeponent States the aforesaid Bradford & Benjamin have a Sister in Indiana that is free

Sworn & subscribed                         H Tooley

Before me May 7, 1820

L Baynton JP

Jonathan Purcell deposeth states that the two Boys Bradford & Benjamin are the same named as plaintiffs in this Suit and further says he knew them from 1809 until 1817 or 18 when he moved from Indiana & that the said pltffs lived that time in the State of Indiana Deponent States that there is no such thing as slavery or involuntary servitude in the State of Indiana

Sworn & subscribed                        Jon.n Purcell

before Me May 7. 1821

L Baynton JP

To the Honorable the Judges of the Superior Court of Law and equity for the County of Adams State of Mississippi The Petition of Bradford Lewis and Benjamin Lewis would respectfully sheweth unto your honors that they have resided in the State of Indiana for many years last part and that by the [illegible] and laws of said State your Petitioners and each of them although black people are free/persons and in no wise suffer to slavery or involuntary servitude your Petitioners further represent that neither of them have ever ? themselves in said State to any person or persons whosoever.

And your Petitioners further sheweth that sometime in the year eighteen hundred and twenty they were forcibly taken by one [blank space] Lyn? Who carried your Petitioners to the state of Tennessee and there sold them as slaves and since that time they have fallen into the hands and possession of J W Clark and David H Slater who are holding and claiming your Petitioners as slaves for life and are about to take your Petitioners to distant parts and dispose of them as slaves for life and each of your Petitioners are free and in no wise subject to slavery or involuntary servitude in any respect whatever

your Petitioners therefore pray the interpretation of this honorable Court and that process may issue to compell [sic] the said JW Clark & David H Slater to appear and answer and that by the judgement of this honorable Court your Petitioners be adjudged free from slavery and set at liberty and they as in duly bound will ever pray

      Stockton & Thornberry

      Attorney for Petitioners

1

We John W Clark and David H Slater do hereby agree to waive the security of a process in this cause and go to trial and hearing as though the same had been issued and regularly served on them and agree to go to trial accordingly that is the suit of Bradford Lewis and Benjamin Lewis against John W Clark and D H Slater in which the Plaintiffs petition for their freedom

      John W Clark

By       D H Slater

      & D H Slater

Bradford Lewis

& Benjamin Lewis

Vs Petition for

Freedom

J W Clark and

David H Slater

Filed

Verdict May 1822

Bill of Cost made out

Execution Issued

Stockton & Thornberry

Plff atts

[HNF note: Benjamin Lewis and Bradford Lewis claiming they are illegally held in slavery. Disposition of case not indicated]

Linda

Moores to Linda, 1803

Adams County Chancery Court

Deed Book C

Pgs. 365-6

Moores to Linda

Rec.d 18 Feby. 1804

To all to whom it may concern Know ye that we Samuel Philip Moore James Moore and Robert Moore all of the city of Natchez and Mississippi Territory of the United States and the only heirs of Alexander Moore deceased for and in consideration of the faithful services of old female family slave known by the name of Linda about sixty years of age and by these presents release to the said Linda all manner of claim or demand whatever we or other of us have to her services and do further liberate set at

Page 366

At liberty & completely emancipate the said Linda given under our hands and seals this day of June Ano Domini one thousand eight hundred and three

Signed sealed and delivered in presence of AL Duncan

Saml P. Moore

Js Moore

Robert Moore

Livinia

Livinia, Police Board Records, 1832

Adams County Chancery Court

Police Board Records

P. 20

Special March Term 1832

Ordered by the Court that the application of the following named free negroes and mulattoes stand continued till next Term [2 words, illegiblesomeone’s name?] Eliza Bosack, Livinia, John Stewart, Phebe, Charles Matson, Polly Dorsey, Rachel Jackson and Moses Turner.

Louis

Louis, mulatto, debt collection, 1783

Adams County Chancery Court

Book 1 Transcript Original Spanish Records, 1777-1802

P. 252

To His Excellency the Civil and Military Commandant of the Post and District of Natchez, etc, etc.

Mr. Thomas Yarrow has the honor to respectfully represent that he is Creditor of one named Lewis, a freed Mulatto to the sum of six dollars which has been due a long time, and as the Petitioner himself is indebted to the Commissary, the said Louis informed him that he had paid the said sum to said Commissary which the Petitioner finds he has not yet satisfied the same, and as he has no other means of paying it, therefore your Petitioner prays that you will compel the said Lewis to pay him, and as in duty bound your Petitioner shall ever pray.

                  Signed

                        Thomas Yarrough

Natchez

3 October 1783

October 4, 1783

Let Louis the mulatto be notified to pay within three days or appear before this Tribunal.

                        Collell

Natchez 4^th Oct. 1783

I notified Louis the mulatto according to order.

            Jas. Harmon, Const.

Fees: 1.0

Louis, mulatto, debt default, 1783

Adams County Chancery Court

Book 1 Transcript Original Spanish Records, 1777-1802

Pgs. 266-7

Mr. Polser Shillings respectfully represents that he is Creditor of one named Louis, a free Mulatto, to the sum of nine dollars five reals and after having made useless demands of payment from said LouisMulatto and receiving only vague promises, your Petitioner prays the sum mentioned and also the costs of suit. A favor that he hopes to receive from your Justice.

            Signed

                  Polser Shillings

Natchez

July 14, 1783

Natchez 14 July 1783

Let the Debtor be notified to pay within three days or come before me

            Collell

p. 267

Natchez 15^th July 1783

I notifyd Louis Mulatto according to order.

            Test.            Jas. Harmon, Const.

Fees ¼

Louis the Mulatto to Polser Shillings Dr.

To 1 Bridle………………………………………..$4-0

To Ribbon………………………………………… -6

To 1 Knife………………………………………… 0-4

To 2 Ells & half of Stripe…………………………. 4-3

Errors Excepted                         --------

                               $9-5

Louisa

Abram Ellis's Will, 1816

Adams County Chancery Court

Will Book 1

Pgs. 156-7

For the faithful attention to me of a mulatto woman named Louisa, I give and bequeath to Benjamin Farrar the said Louisa & her daughter Betsey upon the ?? conditions, that he will use undue diligence and means in his power, to liberate and set free the said Louisa and her daughter Betsey, and for the purpose of effecting the same, I desire and direct all reasonable charges to be paid out of my Estate, and I ?? direct my Executors [illegible due to tape on document] to pay

p. 157

to said Louisa the sum of thirty dollars yearly and every year during her life.

[Not all transcribed, but these are the relevant points regarding free blacks]

Petition of Benjamin Farar [white man] to the Mississippi State Legislature, 1819

Race, Slavery and Free Blacks: Petitions to Southern Legislatures and County Courts microfilm collection Series I: Legislative Petitions, PAR # 11081902

Benjamin Farar asks to emancipate Louisa and her daughter, Betsey, as requested by Abraham Ellis in his will. "He is aware that it has been deemed inexpedient by some of our best legislators to extend too freely to this unfortunate race of beings the discretionary aid of the Legislature," Farar explained, "at the same time it has almost always been done in cases like the present, when the applicants had performed essential & faithful services to their master, and had uniformly borne an excellent character."

Legislative Papers, Petitions and Memorials, 1819; Record Group 47

Copy of Will of Abram Ellis, January 1817 (in 4 pages)

Lundy

State v. Lundy, John (fmc),1859

Historic Natchez Foundation

Box 1

File 67

State of Mississippi

Adams County

      Personally appeared before the undersigned, a Justice of the Peace in and for said County, Jonathan C. Gates who being first duly sworn by me, deposes and says, that on or about the 25^th day of February AD 1859, a mule was feloniously stolen from the plantation of Mrs Ann Calvitt near Washington in said county; and that he the said Gates has found the said mule in the possession of John Lundy, a free person of color, and that he said Gates verily believes that said Lundy feloniously stole said mule, therefore prays that he be arrested & proceeded against according to law.

Sworn to & subscribed before me

This 4^th day of August 1859            J C Gates

CY Merrick JP. (seal)

To any lawful officer of Adams County to execute.

You are hereby commanded without delay to arrest the above named John Lundy, a free man of color, and him bring before me forthwith to be proceeded against according to law.

Given under my hand & seal

This fourth day of August 1859

CY Merrick JP (seal)

Summon as witnesses Abram, a slave the property of E.J. Foulk, Jas M. Hayes & C.Y. Thomas.

Witness my hand & Seal this fourth day of August 1859

            C.Y Merrick JP (seal)

State of Mississippi

vs            August 4^th 1859

Jno Lundy f.m.c.      Examination before Justice Merrick.

      Witness for State

Jonathon Gates testifies that a mule was taken from Mrs. Calvits lot on ^ or about the 25^th Feby lastbut, not before, Jno Lundy says he bought it three or four weeks agoKnew the muleit belongs to Mrs. Calvit & have worked the mule & had it branded with J.C. on the left shoulderan overseer for Mrs Calvit, There were two mules took at the same timefound one of the mules three or four weeks after it was missing, in the possession of John Lundy. Jno Lundy told him he bought the mule ^ now in controversy four or five weeks ago--^ Lundy showed him a receipt & it was dated Feby 15^th 1859.

      Witness for defence.

Abrama slave of E.S. Foulk knew a small mule in Ludy’s possession. I was at Lundy’s house when he was purchasing a mule, saw him trading with a white man. This was several months ago. Did not see him & white man [illegiblepass?] any witness.

James M Hayes testifies that the mule which Gates says he found in Lundy’s possession some months since, was in the Canal & that Lundy let it out of the Canal & fattened it up & then drove it.

Defendant ordered to enter into recognizance of $500.00 with security in like amount for appearance at Nov. term of Circuit Court & until discharged, to answer the charge of Larceny & failing to give it, was committed to jail.

      August 4 1859

[HNF note: Theft of a mule by a free black with a slave and a witness. Lundy held pending trial. Deposition included, verdict not apparent.]

Lusan

Peter Lusan, free papers, 1827

Adams County Chancery Court

Deed Book P

Pgs. 521-2

Peter Lusan Free Papers

The State of Louisiana

Parish & City of New Orleans      This day personally appeared James Davis F M C who being solemnly sworn deposeth and saith as follows vz. That he his [sic]well acquainted with one Peter Lusan, F.M.C, who is now confined in the Police prison of said City, that this deponent has known the said Peter Lusan about twenty years, in the City of New York, where the said Peter served a term of Eight years, as an apprentice to the butchering Business, with Francis Harden of the said City of New York.

This deponent further saith that the said Peter Lusan, used to supply this said deponent with meat while a butcher in New York & that Peter is well known by the most respectable Citizens of said City of New York to be a free man, and always received as such by the citizens generally--       Furthermore this deponent saith not.

      His

James X      Davis

      Mark

Sworn to and subscribed

Before me this 18^th August 1824

Chles. Le Gardined Totly

Justice 4? Section

[Recorded by Woodson Wren 3rd day of July 1827]

p. 522

The State of Louisiana

Parish and City of New Orleans      This day personally appeared Ellen Monicu f.w.c. who being solemnly sworndorth depose and say, that she the said deponent is well acquainted with Peter Lusan f.m.c. of the City of New York, who is now confined in the police prison of the City of New Orleans.This deponent further saith that she has known the said Peter from the time he was a small boy unto the present time, & that he is a free man, free born, in the City of New York.

This deponent further saith that she is well acquainted with the said Peter Sulsan, f.m.c.’s Mother & sister, of New York, who are also free, and free born; and enjoy a good situation.

Furthermore, this deponent saith that she said Peter’s Freedom was never brought into question, and was always reputed & received by the Citizens of New York as a freeman, & well know as a Butcher from good character, and deponent not knowing how to write has made her usual mark.---                              her

Sworn to and subscribed            Ellen      X      Monticu

Before me this 19^th August 1824            mark

J Bernard

M

Major

Gai Metcalf's Will, 1825

Adams County Chancery Court

Will Book 1

P. 37

Ninethly, At the death of my wife Mrs. Metcalf I will and desire that my negro man Major by name be emancipated and I hereby secudly [sic] enjoin it on my children and those who after the death of my wife shall take charge of my property to have him set free; if the laws of the state will not allow his emancipation I desire and enjoin that at the expense of my estate he the said slave Major with his own consent thereto be removed to some state of the United States where slavery is not tolerated and then set at liberty in a formal and open manner

[Not all transcribed, just the part relevant to free blacks]

Maria

Manumission of Maria and children by Stephen D. Elliot, 1855

Adams County Chancery Court

Deed Book LL

Pgs. 265-6

Alford notes that Maria, 35, is the mother to Viola, 15; Madeline, 8; Evelyn, 6; and Sidney, 3, all freed with her, 50.

Recorded in Alford, Terry L. “Some Manumissions Recorded in the Adams County Deed Books in Chancery Clerk’s Office, Natchez, Mississippi, 1795-1835,” Journal of Mississippi History 33, (Feb. 1971): 39-50.

Marshall

Harry Marshall1 male 24-36; 1 male 36-55; 1 female 36-55 (1840 Natchez census)

Henry Marshall40 bm, “Free Black,” PA, w/Cloe, ?bf, VA; Thomas? Powell, ?bm; Henry Morgan, 52 bm (1850 Natchez census)

Harry Marshall56 bm, drayman, VA w/Chloe, 56 bf, washerwoman (1860 Natchez census)

Harry emancipated his wife Chloe and Aggy and her two daughters Margaret and Jane in 1834, Deed Book V, 298 [Recorded in Alford, Terry L. “Some Manumissions Recorded in the Adams County Deed Books in Chancery Clerk’s Office, Natchez, Mississippi, 1795-1835,” Journal of Mississippi History 33, (Feb. 1971): 39-50].

Harry L. Marshall Police Board Records, 1832

Adams County Chancery Court

Police Board Records

P. 11

March Term 1832

Harry L. Marshall a free negro man of dark complexion about thirty five years of age five feet six or seven inches high his left eye a little crossed having satisfied the court of his good character and honest deportment.

It is therefore ordered by the Court that Harry L. Marshall be licensed to remain in this state agreeable to the act of assembly entitled an act to amend an act entitled an act to reduce into one the several acts concerning slaves free negroes and mulattoes passed 20^th December AD 1831.

Martin

Bill Martin1 male 26-44, 2 F to 14, 1 F to 26, 2 F 45+ (1820 Adams Co. Census)

L. Martin1 male 55-100; 1 female 55-100 (1840 Natchez census)

Martin, Phebe

Phebe Martin vs. John Wells Junr. 1800

Dolph Briscoe Center

Natchez Trace Collection

Legal Records

Adams County, MS

Court of Common Pleas, 1799-1802

Box 2E1068

? filed

Feby Term 1800

No 8

Court of Commons

Adams County MS: Pleas February Term 1800.

Phebe Martin otherwise called Phebe, a negro Woman Complaining of John Wells Junr. In custody & co. of a plea of Trespass for that whereas the said John Wells Junr on the Twentieth day of August in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety nine, with force and arms, to wit, with clubs and staves [or stays?], upon her the said Phebe Martin at Natchez in the County of Adams and Mississippi Territory of the United States, did make an assault, and did then and there beat, wound imprison and evil entreat her, and her the said Phebe Martin so imprisoned against the will of the said Phebe, without any reasonable course and against the laws and customs of this Territory and of the United States for a long time, to wit, for the space of six months kept and detained, and other injuries to her then and there did, against the peace & dignity of the Mississippi Territory and the United States, and to the damage of the said Phebe five hundred dollars and Thereupon she brings suit &c

Unreadable signatures                              John Doe & Richard Roe?

                                           Pledges to prosecute [I think that’s what it indicates]

[Not all transcribed]

Howard, William v. Langdon, 1816

Historic Natchez Foundation

Box 38

File 21

Mississippi Territory

Adams County, [illegible]      

Personally appeared before me the undersigned a Justice of Peace in & for said County William Howard & made oath That by an Indenture bearing date on or about the 26th day of June in the year 1816, one Sally Martin, a free woman of Colour, is bound to serve him the deponent [illegible] the term of Six years, from the date of said Indenture, as a servant, that she will for said space of time remain & continue in the family of the said deponent as a true & faithful servant, that she will faithfully obey all & every lawful commands & directions of the said deponent during the said time & that she will at all times [illegible] to promote the welfare & interests of the said deponent & his family, during said Term of six yearsDeponent further says that one Richard Langdon of the City of Natchez in said County, in or about the 24th day of the present month September did fraudulently induce the said Sally Martin, his servant aforesaid, to leave the service and employment of the said deponent & did persuade & induce the said Sally Martin, his said servant, to go into the service & employment of the said Langdon he at the time of so persuading & inducing [illegible] the said Sally Martin

Well knew & was informed that the said Sally Martin was then & there the indentured servant of deponent as aforesaid. And the said Langdon still detains & keeps the said Sally Martin his servant as aforesaid, out of & from the service, possession & employment of the deponent to his damage of $585.            William Howard

Sworn to & subscribed

This 25th Sept: 1816

And.w Marschalk

JP.

[It seems by 1818, it was not prosecuted further: Rule to declare Non pron (?) for want of Declaration May 4, 1818]

[Don’t know how common Dembo as a name was but it IS possible Johnson got his name wrong (as Gibson) Footnote from Johnson Diary, 345: Dembo had been freed by direction of the will of Samuel Gibson, illiterate free man of color, who had been a Natchez property owner as early as 1823 and died in 1832. Samuel Gibson had left his estate “consisting in a house and lot where I now reside and a vacant lot near the theatre” to “the issue of my body begotten on free woman of color named Esther,” whom he had already freed. He had also left his “personal estate consisting of drays horses, mules, cattle, working utensils, &c &c and money in Bank” to be used for the education and support of his children. Dembo worked for the estate until 1835 when he was emancipated in Ohio; he was still in Natchez in 1843. Mary Ann Gibson was perhaps one of Samuel Gibson’s children].

Dembo Martin, Police Board Records, February 1843

Adams County Chancery Court

Police Board Records

P. 375

February Term 1843

Dembo Martin, a free man of Color, of black Complexion, aged about fifty five years, and five feet ten inches in height, having satisfied the Board that he was of good character and honest deportment, it was thereupon ordered that he be licensed to remain in the State according to the act of the Legislature in this behalf.

Terry Alford lists Dembo getting his freedom from the executors of Samuel Gibson in Deed Book W, p. 51 in 1835.

9 Sep., 1841 (Johnson Diary)"Poor Andrew Leeper was, I understand, ordered off to day, and so was Dembo and Maryan Gibson They are as far as I Know inocent and Harmless People And Have never done a Crime since they have been in the State that I have Herd.”

Mary

John C. Carr, Last Will and Testament, 1834

Adams County Chancery Court

Will Book 2

P. 106

1^st It is my will that my Girl Mary & her child Emily shall immediately on my deceased, or as seen thereafter as practical be set free from the bonds of slavery

2ndly For the purpose of carrying the above provision into effect I do hereby appoint, my friends James Surget & A.J. Bingaman of the County of Adams, & State of Mississippi my Lawful Executors & do further bequeath to them any money I may die possessed of or the proceeds of any due me to be applied to the purpose of freeing said slaves above named & of maintaining them thereafter

Signed and sealed in the presence of

D Noruerck?                  John C. Carr

Wilford Hoggatt Will, 1840

Adams County Chancery Court

Will Book 2

Pgs. 229-30

Wilford Hoggatt28 Aug., 1840Whare as on the twenty fourth day of December eightteen hundred and twenty four in the State of Louisiana and parish of St helena a certain Negro wooman by the name of Feby, paid to me in hand for her own freedom five hundred and fifty dollars and since my removal into the State of Mississippi has had born from her boddy, the following named children(viz) Jeffrey, William, Antony, Gim, Abb, Emiline, and Eliza, being in number five boys and two girls, -my wish is that the wman Feby and her seven children have ther freedom, and I do hereby free them from myself, and deed them free from myself, and deed them free from all claims of all persons whatever, my wish is and I do hereby give to the wooman Febe, six hundred dollars for services rendered for Sixteen years at fifty dollars per year, I further give and devis to a molatto girl Mary aged four years or there abouts her freedom and do hereby deed to her, her freedom free from me and all others, I give and bequeath to the eight children…all of my Estate both real and personal, that is I give to each one of them and equal portion of Land and Slaves Stock and household furniture as they attain to the age of twenty one years, the three girls I wish to get or be given ther portion of my Estate when they arive to the age of sixteen years of age over the boys to receive their portion at the age of twenty one years, I wish when the money is collected that is due me or left after paying off my debts, to be laid out in the purchase of Slaves and placed on the farm for the support of Said eight children untill they becum of age, and the estate to be increased by the remainders of procedes of crops should there be any after furnishing a support, having four thousand Acres of Land in Texas I wish the same to be equally divided amongst the before named eight children.”

Mary Ann

Manumission of Mary Ann by Samuel Terrell, 1837

Adams County Chancery Court

Deed Book Z

P. 383

Alford notes that Mary Ann was 21 and Terrell was from Hinds County, MS, 49.

Recorded in Alford, Terry L. “Some Manumissions Recorded in the Adams County Deed Books in Chancery Clerk’s Office, Natchez, Mississippi, 1795-1835,” Journal of Mississippi History 33, (Feb. 1971): 39-50.

Mason

Charles Mason, friend of Catherine Johnson, mentioned in her diary in Gould, Chained to the Rock of Adversity, 10/31/1864, pgs. 73-74.

Matilda--

Manumission of Matilda by Joseph Forman, 1846

Adams County Chancery Court

Deed Book FF

Pgs. 238-9

Alford notes that Forman was of Freehold, New Jersey, and did it through that state.

Recorded in Alford, Terry L. “Some Manumissions Recorded in the Adams County Deed Books in Chancery Clerk’s Office, Natchez, Mississippi, 1795-1835,” Journal of Mississippi History 33, (Feb. 1971): 39-50.

Matson

Charles Matson, Police Board Records, 1832

Adams County Chancery Court

Police Board Records

P. 20

Special March Term 1832

Ordered by the Court that the application of the following named free negroes and mulattoes stand continued till next Term [2 words, illegiblesomeone’s name?] Eliza Bosack, Livinia, John Stewart, Phebe, Charles Matson, Polly Dorsey, Rachel Jackson and Moses Turner.

Charles Matson, Police Board Records, June 1832

Adams County Chancery Court

Police Board Records

P. 24

June Term 1832

Thursday morning, June 7^th 1832

Charles Matson a free man of Colour aged about twenty five years about five feet seven inches high yellow complexion satisfied the court of his good character and honest deportment.

It is therefore ordered by the court that the said Charles Mason be licensed to remain in this state agreeably to the act of assembly entitled an act to amend an act to reduce into one the several acts concerning slaves free negroes and mulattoes passed 20^th December 1831.

McCarey

Francis (Frankie) McCrary2 fpc (1816 Adams County Census)

Robert McCary1 male 10-24; 1 female 24-36 (slaves1 male –10; 1 female 10-24) (1830 Natchez Census)

Robert McCary2 males –10; 1 male 10-24; 1 male 24-36; 1 female 24-36; 1 female 36-55 (2 female slaves 10-24) (1840 Natchez census)

Robert McCary(whole family listed as white) 40m Artist? Or Dentist? $2500, MS w/Mary 40f, KY; Wm 20m, Barber; Robert Jr 17m, MS; Francis (must be Franky) McCary, 60f, VA (1850 Natchez Census)

Robert McCary49 mm, barber, $2000 R.E., $500 P.E., MS w/William, 39 mm; Robert, 27 mm, barber; Mary, 45 mf; Lenora?, 18 mf; Robert, 6 mm; Mary, 3 mf (1860 Natchez census)

James McCary Will, 1815

Adams County Chancery Court

Will Book 1

Pgs. 88-90

James McCary’s Willproven 5^th April 1813, written 16 Feb, 1813“I give and devise unto Francis Curtis a free woman of colour of the City of Natchez, my lot of land conveyed to me by Deed of Robt Williams…I give and bequeath, unto my negro Girls Sally and Franky their freedom forever, to commence on the day of my death; and it is my Will, and I hearby charge and devise my Executor herein after named to use his utmost endeavor to have them the said Sally and the said Franky, and children of the said Franky, that is to say one called Bob and the other called Kitty manumitted as soon as possible agreeable to the laws of the Mississippi Territory in that case made and provided;--And in case their manumission cannot be legally and easily obtained in the Mississippi Territory, it is my Will, and my said Executor is hereby charged to send or have the said Sally and the said Franky, and her children, Bob, and Kitty sent to Pennsylvania thereto be manumitted agreeable to the laws of that Stateand the said children of Franky to wit, Bob & Kitty to be there educated and brought up in the fear of God, and in the principles and practice of true religion and moralityMy negro called Lucy, and the youngest child of Franky, called Warner, and there progeny are to be held as slaves during all and each of their lives, and their labour/ and services, and the proceeds of the same shall be solely for the use and benefit of the aforesaid Bob and Kitty, the children of Franky share and share alike. I give and devise unto Bob, the son of Franky as aforesaid my lot of Land…I give and devise to Kitty the daughter of Franky aforesaid my two lots Known as Lots number two and three in square number one…I give and bequeath to Bob, the son of Franky aforesaid the sum of one thousand dollars, to be made out of my personal Estate, and the outstanding debts due to me at this time. I give and bequeath to Bob & Kitty the children of Franky aforesaid, the rest and residue of my personal Estate or the proceeds thereof; and the rest and residue of my outstanding debts on the proceeds to be divided share and share alike between them.

Eleventh I do hereby constitute and appoint my dearly beloved friend Walter Irvine of the City of Natchez the guardian and protector of the said Bob and Kitty, the children of the said Franky during their minority. And earnestly entreat his utmost care and attention in and about the education and morals of the sd children.

[There were some other provisions not transcribed in which he left property to others].

Walter Irvine to Frankey, Manumission, 1815

Adams County Chancery Court

Deed Book L

P. 80

Know all men by these presents that I John Cary of the Borough of Pittsburgh, County of Allegheny and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania aforesaid by virtue of the foregoing Letter or Power of Attorney do hereby liberate manumit and emancipate forever, the within named (negro girl) Frankey, and according to the power and authority vested in me by the said foregoing Letter or power of Attorney do by these presence declare the said Frankey to be hereby and from the day of the date of these presents, manumitted emancipated, and set free. Given under my hand and seal the thirtieth day of May in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and fifteen

Signed & sealed in the presence of             Walter Irvine Seal

L. Douglas                              by his attorney in fact

Allegheny County                        John Carey

[More details not transcribed, but it was recorded in the same county by the JP and then recorded in Natchez by Woodson Wren on 2^nd May 1820]

Bob and Kitty McCary's free papers, 1827

Adams County Chancery Court

Deed Book P

Pgs. 659-60

[Not transcribing all…Walter Irvine, as executor of James McCary’s estate, took Bob & Kitty to have their freedom recorded in Cincinnati, OH 3 Oct 1815. Interestingly, two separate documents for them, but both include the following language in reference to the $500 bond that the Court entered into with Hezekiah Flint and Caleb Wiliams as securities: “conditioned for the good behavior and in case of the said Bob ever being found in any township in Said State unable to support himself to pay for the support of the said Bob and that said bond is now on file in my office & further that the said Bob is entitled to citizenship agreeably to the statute in such case made and provided.”]

[Recorded 3rd day of October 1827 by Woodson Wren]

Kitty McCarey, Police Board Records, 1832

Adams County Chancery Court

Police Board Records

P. 19

Special March Term 1832

Kitty McCarey a free mulatto woman about twenty three years old five feet four or five inches high satisfied the court of his good character and honest deportment.

It is therefore ordered by the Court that said Kitty McCarey be licensed to remain in this state agreeable to the act of assembly entitled an act to amend an act entitled an act to reduce into one the several acts concerning slaves free negroes and mulattoes passed 20^th December AD 1831.

Mary McCarey Police Board Records, 1832

Adams County Chancery Court

Police Board Records

P. 12

March Term 1832

Mary McCarey a free mulatto woman about 23 or 24 years old 5 feet high satisfied the court of her good character and honest deportment.

It is therefore ordered by the Court that said Mary McCarey be licensed to remain in this state agreeable to the act of assembly entitled an act to amend an act entitled an act to reduce into one the several acts concerning slaves free negroes and mulattoes passed 20^th December AD 1831.

Robert McCarey Police Board Records, 1832

Adams County Chancery Court

Police Board Records

P. 12

March Term 1832

Robert McCarey a free mulatto man about 25 years old 5 feet 8 inches high satisfied the court of his good character and honest deportment.

It is therefore ordered by the Court that said Robert McCarey be licensed to remain in this state agreeable to the act of assembly entitled an act to amend an act entitled an act to reduce into one the several acts concerning slaves free negroes and mulattoes passed 20^th December AD 1831.

[Note from Angela Pulley Hudson’s Real Native Genius: How an Ex-slave and a White Mormon became Famous Indians. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2015 says that Warner was manumitted by brother Robert in 1839 by Deed Book BB, 228-229, p. 187].

Warner McCarey alias James Warner, Police Board Records, February 1843

Adams County Chancery Court

Police Board Records

P. 374

February Term 1843

Warner McCarey alias James Warner, a free man of Color of mulatto complexion, aged about 29 years, and five feet and four 1/2 inches, having Satisfied the Board that he was of good character, and honest deportment, it was thereupon ordered that he be licensed to remain in this State according to the act of the Legislature in this behalf.

Kitty McCarey to J.H. Moore, 1832

Adams County Chancery Court

Deed Book U

P. 127

“This indenture made the 31^st day of August in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty two between Kitty McCarey of the one part and Jonathan H. Moore of the other part. Witnesseth that the said Kitty McCarey for and in consideration of the sum of one hundred dollars to her in hand paid by the Jonathan H. Moore at or before the sealing and delivery of these presents the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged and the Jonathan H. Moore his heirs executors and administrators forever released and discharged therefrom by these presents hath granted bargained sold conveyed and confirmed and by these presents do grant bargain sell convey and confirm unto the said Jonathan H. Moore his heirs and assigns forever all the lot or parcel of land in that part of the city of Natchez in state of Mississippi called and known as “Williamsburg” being lot number two in square number one in the plan or map of said Williamsburg which is the same lot or parcel of land conveyed to the said Kitty McCary by “David Hunt and Charles B. Green as trustees of Jeremiah Hunt deceased and attorneys in fact of Jesse Hunt and Oliver M Spencer executors of the last will and testament and trustees of Jeremiah Hunt deceased” together with all and singular the appurtenances hereditaments privileges and advantages whatsoever either at law or in equity of her the said Kitty McCarey of in and to the same: to Have and to hold the above…31 Aug. 1832.

Kitty

Aug. 25, 1832 (Johnson Diary)"To Day Mr Lawrrence whipped K and her son James prety severeethe[re] were a motion made to prosecute him I believe”

Sep. 28, 1836 (Johnson Diary)“Peter Lawrence got clear of the charge of whiping Kity McCarythere was no Bill found against him. Rascally. Rascally”

Nov. 16, 1836 (Johnson Diary)“Mother went up to see Kitty McCary. She found her very Low indeed, not expected to Live more than a Day.”

Nov. 16, 1836 (Johnson Diary) “K McCary Died Last night and was buried this morning.”

“Born in 1830 the son of Robert McCary, William made his living as a barber and during Reconstruction served as mayor and postmaster of natchez and sheriff and treasurer of Adams County” (Daniel F. Littlefield, The Life of Okah Tubbee. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1988, xii)

“The leading barber at Natchez in the years just before the Civil War was a free negro named (Robert) McCarey. As a sideline, he taught a school, the pupils con sisting of the offspring of others of his own class. His own children attended this school, and one of his sons, William, was subsequently sheriff of Adams County in the Reconstruction period,” (Charles Sydnor, “The Free Negro in Mississippi Before the Civil War,” American Historical Review 32 (1927), 784).

[The following quotations are all from Littlefield, The Life of Okah Tubbee]:

“Whether Okah Tubbee was truly ignorant of his genesis or purposely clouded his public statements about it is uncertain. He was born about 1810 or 1811 and was known as Warner, apparently the son of Franky (or Frances), a black slave woman owned by James McCary, a Pennsylvania cabinetmaker then living at Natchez.” (viii)

“There is no reason to doubt that at a young age the boy began to question his identity. A mind as clever as Okah Tubbee’s would quickly have perceived the distinctions society made between him and his mother and siblings. Whereas he was dressed in the rough clothes of a slave, Robert, through the substantial estate left by McCary, was outfitted with shoes, shirts, runabouts (long smocklike shirts worn by both boys and girls), and pantaloons, and Kitty was furnished with shifts and dresses. Whereas Warner grew up illiterate, Robert and Kitty were educated by private tutors paid by funds from the estate. And Frankey prospered, receiving a regular salary of ten dollars a month for several years for boarding and lodging the children and doing their sewing and laundry. Sucha mind as Warner’s might easily have concluded that something was amiss, that the arrangement was inherently unfair. And intimate knowledge of free status and slave could lead that mind to a loathing of slavery and to a desire for freedom and, thwarted and embittered, ultimately to a hatred for the epithet nigger, a rejection of African heritage, and the realization that he must belong to another race” (x)

“The idea of the enslaved Indian is not farfetched. Such enslavement occurred as late as the 1840s, when remnants of the Creek Indians were left unprotected following removal of the main body of the tribe from Alabama. The traffic in human flesh required only that the flesh was legally or apparently nonwhite…Choctaws were a common sight in and about Natchez. Before the end of the eighteenth century it had become their practice to encamp seasonally near Natchez, and early in the nineteenth century they worked as seasonal laborers and bartered goods in town. By the second decade of the century, slaves were trading among themselves and with Indians and whites, and Choctaws frequently interacted economically and socially with them during weekend marketing in Natchez.” (xi)

“After a period of youthful rebellion, he was apprenticed at about age eighteen to William McCaffrey, a blacksmith. It was common for indigent children to be apprenticed by the orphans court. Free blacks were also apprenticed until 1840, after which white distrust of them increased” (xiii)

“Warner’s apprenticeship may have been Robert McCary’s doing. He and McCaffrey had frequent business dealings in the 1830s. In 1841 McCary apprenticed Kitty’s son, James McNeill, to McCaffrey ‘to learn the art, trade or Mystery of a Blacksmith.’ At age twenty-one James would be released from the indenture, possessing a a trade and two suits of clothes, ‘one suitable for Sundays and the other for working days.’ (xiii)

“When Warner was released from his indenture and given his suit of clothes (his second, good suit may have been taken by Franky), he was determined to use his wits to effect his escape from Natchez. When, in 1830 or 1831, he had begun to play the fife for the Natchez Cadets, he had established a pattern that served him well for many years: publicly to disassociate himself from both slave and free black, who among other things, were forbidden to serve in militias” (xiii)

“Although he had separated himself from the black community and claimed to be free by virtue of completing his apprenticeship, Warner was in a precarious position. Franky, Robert, and Kitty still claimed him as a slave” (xiv)

“In July 1839 McCary had given his power of attorney to Almon Baldwin of Cincinnati to take whatever measures were necessary for the manumission of James Warner. But there is no certificate of freedom, as in other such cases, showing that the manumission occurred. In 1842 Okah Tubbee visited the Choctaw Academy in Kentucky. In 1843 he was back in Natchez, where he appeared as James Warner alias Warner McCary” (xix)

Talking about when he was living in Missouri and practicing medicine, a wealthy “ ‘liberal, genteel, drunken gambler’ from Natchez appeared and began to harass him. The man claimed to have always known Okah Tubbee, spread the word that he was not a physician, and damaged his reputation in the community.” (xxxi)

“What were the threats that he made? Did he view Okah Tubbee as a fugitive (xxxi) slave under the new Fugitive Slave Law, and was he threatening to take him back to Natchez? After all, Franky and Robert and Kitty McCary had claimed him when he left, and there is no evidence of his having been manumitted. Whatever the threats, they were serious enough to make Okah Tubbee pack up his family and head for Canada” (xxxii)

“Despite its weaknesses, Okah Tubbee’s narrative is fascinating. It provides some often terrifying glimpses into the social conditions of the nonwhite population in the Old South…Okah Tubbee also serves as a striking example of one caught in the tangle of legal definition of race and social status. The racially undefined ‘mulatto’ slave of a free black, he refused to accept slave status and was harshly punished and imprisoned. Having escaped slavery by virtue of his apprenticeship in blacksmithing, he gained little by having become a free black who differed little in rights from the slave and who must obtain a license to reside in Mississippi. The narrative presents the struggle of a man whose temperament and sense of self, even in his later years, were repulsed by the idea of involuntary servitude or relegation to social class because of race. His struggle to escape the label nigger and publicly to dissociate himself from both slave and free black provides fleeting insights into such matters as social status among the black population and the relation between color and social status. Though legally relegated to the social status of slave, he knew that racial lines were fluid. As Sally Kelly had told him, one need not be black to be a slave” (xxxviii)

“I soon found out this was not my own father (James McCary), neither in appearance nor in action, and began to understand that I could have but one father. This man was white, and a slave woman had the management of his house, she had two children, who were older than myself, a boy and a girl; she was very fond of them, but was never even kind to me, yet they obliged me to call her mother. I was always made to serve the two children, though many times I had to be whipped into obedience. If I had permission to go out an hour to play, I chose to be alone, that I might weep over my situation, but even this consolation was refused me. I was forced to go in company with them, takein with me, many times, a smarting back, after a promise had been extorted from me that I would remain with them and obey them. I soon found myself boxing heartily with the boys, both white and black, because they called me an ill name, and everthing but that which was true, for I could not and would not submit to such gross insults without defending myself, which is so characteristic of the red man. Her children were well dressed and neat; I was not only in rags, but many times my proud heart seemed crushed within me, and my cheek crimsoned with shame because of their filthy condition, and I often left them off in consequence, but soon learned to take them off and wash them myself, such was my abhorrence of filth. I was compelled to go in a naked state to enable me to wash my clothes, and they upbraided me for my nakedness, but I replied, where did you ever see or hear of a child being born with clothes on? I was then a child too young to work but did errands” (18)

“The woman who had the care of me was very angry with me at this time, and told Mr. Davis that she wished she had never seen me, and desired him never to bring me back; but he said, ‘Never mind, aunty, fortune will take care of him. I expect he will outlive us both.’ (this was when he went off as a child on a trip with Mr. Joseph Davis, p. 19)

[He calls Franky his “unnatural mother” at least 4 times and “pretended mother” once].

“By this time I had become quite a whistler, and by this method, and other means, had obtained quite a sum of money again, and I employed the same lawyer who had assisted me on a former occasion, to purchase me another suit of clothes, and the lawyer went and told the woman that he had presented them to me, and that she must let me wear them. She did so, and I was so thankful for it that I was willing to give her anything which I could make by my ingenuity. She could not bear to hear me praised, especially above her own children, and she forbade my receiving any more presents. I then hired out to doctors and lawyers to sweep their offices, &c. Some were kind enough to feed me and and pay me something; others fed me only, and took me home to their families” (22)

This next section is entitled “Cruel Treatment of the Colored Woman in Whose Hands I had been Placed by Her Master”

“I gave the woman my money, also the presents I received, but the more I gave her, the more she exacted from me. Child as I was, I could not allow myself to weep by day. If she found my pillow wet with my tears, she whipped me for that, and I formed a habit of going alone at night, and lifting my heart to God in prayer, for his preservation; and that my father might return” (22)

“here I determined to (22) ask the white man, who brought me here, about my own father. I had now and then mentioned it to the woman, she always told with tongue and heart, begone! Outlandish savage, you never had any father. As she was always angry at my inclination to be alone about this time, she gave me a severe whipping for climbing a bluff, which no other boy dared to, and thus spending a Sabbath with my thoughts, tears, prayers, and childish aspirations. This point was called Buzzard Roost. I have since thought she in her anger, forgot herself at this time, for she asked me if I did not know that this was the way Indians and all wild savages lived, and could not be tamed; the the white people could not make as much service of them, as they could of the blacks, for they would not work for them, but spent their lives wandering about in the woods, both day and night, living with the wild beasts. Now I loved wild beasts, and my heart was swelling within me; I forgot her evil blows, as with clasped hands, and tearful eyes, my heart kindled with the most intense emotion at her recital. I cried out, “Oh! Tell me more, tell me more!” She looked at me, said something about the strange wild light in my eyesseated herself, and seemed in deep thought. She then said something which I did not understand, though I listened, for I thought she was going to tell me more. I think she said in a soliloquy, ‘what is bred in the bone will be in the marrow.’ Consequently, when I hear the remark, my mind resorts to this scene of my childhood with peculiar emotion and intense interest. I accordingly asked the white man where he found me, and when my father would come for me. He seemed astonished to find I had any recollection of a father before I saw him. He told me that I had been dreaming that he was not my father, bade me remember I was this woman’s child, and she could do as she pleased with me; bade me never to mention this to any one, nor speak of it again to him; but told me that I would know more about it when old enough to work.” (23)

After running away a little while after this, he worked for a period in a brick kiln but then was returned to Franky (he said they were advertising for him..check newspapers?) “This unnatural mother, after her old custom, stripped me to give me a lashing; but at the sight of my bruised and lacerated body, she seemed to have some relentings, and I thought was moved for a moment even to pity. The reason of my being thus mangled, was in consequence of refusing to return. They beat me and lashed me so unmercifully with a cowhid, that my body was black and blue. She then said she wished she had never seen me or the man who had brought me there. She seemed to have given up all hopes of conquering me, and said she ought to tell all she knew and get rid (24) of me, lest I should do something in my fits of anger of an awful nature. She then bade me put on my clothes and begone out of her sight, and told me to remember that at some future time she should punish me. I then went to Major Young of the U.S. Army, who was then stationed there, and through his influence I obtained a situation with a Physician, Dr. A.P. Merrill, who was also a Surgeon in the U.S. Army.” (25)

[Then he describes how he learned techniques of being a doctor by assisting and observing him]

[He talks about getting into a fight with a white boy and hitting him with a brick and knocking out 5 teeth]: “They went to my unnatural mother to see what they could do with her. My runaway excursion was not yet settled for, and she said she could not do any thing about it, and they must take my body. She made many complaints about my violent and unconquerable temper, and said she had intended to have me imprisoned, and there whipped and starved, until my spirit should be tamed.” (27)

[Next section entitled “Imprisonment and Cruel Whipping”]:

“The people were strangers to me, and the father of many other boys that I had boxed for the same insult, took advantage of this, and bore testimony against me that I was a dangerous boy when angry (notes say that the witnesses against him were N. Stewart and J. Kemp in the McCary Probate papers) They however spoke of my industrious habits and talents (27) favorably, and upon the whole they concluded to confine me in prison, with now and then a flogging, with little to eat; according to the sentence of Esq. J. Tooley. I heard my sentence with sullen composure. They asked me if I was not sorry; I told them that if their laws and prison had the power to keep my body, I was sure I had power over my own tongue; that I could not, and would not talk with them, and when I was sorry it would be before God alone.

McFadden

Alford, Deed Book W, 91-2, 257, Sally, freed with Sophia & Rosella Gireaudeau by Felicite Gireaudeau, listed as 53 in 1835, when she was freed

Recorded in Alford, Terry L. “Some Manumissions Recorded in the Adams County Deed Books in Chancery Clerk’s Office, Natchez, Mississippi, 1795-1835,” Journal of Mississippi History 33, (Feb. 1971): 39-50.

McMullin

Henty [listed as head]1 male –14, 1 female 45+ (1820 Natchez census)

Merial

William Cotton's Will, 1843

Adams County Chancery Court

Will Book 2

P. 269

Item 3d It is my will and I hereby direct my Executors to emancipate without delay my mulatto woman Susan and my servant man Juba, also my mulatto girl child named Merial the daughter of Eliza in consideration of the faithful services they have rendered. And I desire my Executors at the cost of my Estate to Take all legal and needful measures to carry this object into full and complete effect.

[Not all transcribed, just details concerning African Americans]

Miguel

Angelica and others, free papers, 1823

Adams County Chancery Court

Deed Book N

Pgs. 265-6

Angelica and others, free papers

In the City of New Orleans, on the thirteenth of March A.D. ? before me the Clerk and witness, appeared the Senor Licentiste Don ? GevanaAssessor General of the Intendency, Alcado of the first ward? Of this city and its jurisdiction and testamentary Executor of Wills. Donna Margarita Gengen Bauvais, Widow of Don Thomas Bentley according to the tenor of the writing and will that is before me, of the date November fourth of the year past A.D. ? at which time said Senor E Don Thomas Bently, did, and ?? in virtue of the definitive act of the Senor Baron de Carondelet, Knithgt of the Order of St. John, Yula? Marshal of the Royal ? Govornor and Commandant General and Vice Patron Royal of these provinces of Luisiana and West Florida, by the advice and consent of the Senor, Doctor, Don, Nicholas Maria Vidal, Lieutenant Governor Auditor of War and Assessor General of this Government on the eleventh of the present Month, it is declared that the Senor Ortogante shall execute the Testamentary articles, ??of the wills of the said of the said Donna Margarita Gengen, and it being and of them one of the clauses of the wills that there should be granted to her slaves Celeste, Henngueta, Miguel & Juan Bautista, Mulatto brothers & sisters, as also to the negress named Angelica, using those powers which the laws grant her, in virtue of that which the Testatrine has of giving, she grants by the presents & representing their persons, that she frees and liberates from all subjection, Bondage and Servitude the said slaves, Celeste, Henngueta, Miguel Juan Bautista, and Agngelica that they may hold it, and be no longer subject to her. By which means, she deprives of and separates from, and divests of and ? from said succession, the right of property, possession, use, Dominion and authority, that she had to said slaves, and all she held in them, She yields to them, renounces and transport So that as free persons, they may devise contract, purchase, vend, appear in Judgment, grant writing and wills, and do all of the Judicial and extra=Judicial acts that may do and do these persons who are exercising their freedom; and declared that neither the heirs of said Succession nor their Successors shall reclaim them in any manner whatsoever, Since they would do it by the mere act, they cannot possible be heard or listened to? & it must inevitably be seen that she has approved it and complied with all the necessary requisites, adding to it, strength strength [sic] & contract to contract, to the fulfillment of which said succession, is obliged in every form (or items) of law

[More details not transcribed but archived in N.O. in 1797 and recorded in Natchez 8^th December 1823 by Woodson Wren & Robert Piggot]

Miller, Hannah

Hannah Miller2 fpc (Census of 1816, Adams County)

Hannah Miller3 fpc (Census of 1818, Adams County)

Hannah Miller to Joseph Barnard, 1819

Adams County Chancery Court

Deed Book K

Pgs. 496-7

Hannah Miller to Joseph Barnard

Know all men by these presents that I Hannah Miller a free woman of colour of the City of Natchez, Adams County, and State of Mississippi, have made constituted & appointed, and by these presents have made constituted & appointed, and by these presents do make constitute and appoint, and in my name [this word was erased though] place and stead put and depute my trusty and loving friend, Joseph Barnard of said County & State, planter, my true and lawful attorney for me and in my name to do and transact, perform and execute all & every act & act thing & things [sic] in relation to my business of what nature or kind soever both as to real and personal property, to sell and purchase land for such prices as he may deem proper for my interest, to collect & pay debts to make and execute deed or Deeds, bonds promissory notes in my name & to receive the same from other persons, in my name and for my use . living and granting to my said attorney by these presents, my full and whole power strength and authority in and about the premises, to have use and take all lawful ways and means, in my name for the purposes aforesaid and upon the sale of any property, to make and execute deed or Deeds therefor, upon the receipt of monies debts or dues or pure hard money of property sold, acquittances or other sufficient discharges, for me and in my

p. 497

name to make seal and deliver. And generally all and every act or acts, thing & things device and devices in the law whatsoever, needful and necessary to be done in and about the premises for me and in my name, to do execute and perform, as fully, largely, & amply to all intents & purposes as I myself might or could do if personally present; and attornies one or more under him for the purposes aforesaid to make & constitute, & again at pleasure to revoke. Hereby ratifying, allowing and holding for firm & effectual, all and whatsoever my said attorney shall lawfully do in and about the premises by virtue hereof. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal the twenty fourth day of June in the year of our Lord 1819.                  her

Witness                        Hannah X Miller Seal

E. TurnerJno Grafton                  mark

Be it known that on the day of the date hereof below me John Henderson Notary Public for the Mississippi Territory residing in the City of Natchez by lawful authority duly commissioned and sworn, personally came Edward Turner one of the subscribing witnesses to the within Letter or Power of Attowney, and being duly sworn according law deposeth and saith that he saw Hannah Miller whose name is subscribed and seal affixed to the aforesaid Letter or Power of attorney set her ordinary mark to the same as also her seal, and acknowledged that the same was her act & Deed for the purposes therein mentioned

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and notarial seal at Natchez aforesaid the twenty ninth day of June in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred & nineteen.                  John Henderson.

                        Not. Pub.

I certify that the foregoing and within Power was recd unto my office to be recorded on the ninth day of July 1819

      Woodson Wren, Clerk

Richard H. May to Lewis Hough (Hannah Miller involved), 1824

Adams County Chancery Court

Deed Book O

Pgs. 76-78

[Not transcribing entire document, only pertinent sections but apparently, the city tax collector, Richard May by law, after making attempt to collect taxes on properties, if he does not receive them from the person after showing up at their place, can sell the property at a public auction. It looks like this is exactly what happened.]

“And whereas on the list of taxes for the year 1822 given to Mr. Richard H. May Collector as aforesaid the party of the first part by the assessor of the City of Natchez for the year 1822 was the name of a certain Hannah Miller a free woman of Color who was assessed to pay the sum of Three Dollars and Seventy five cents. The tax for the year 1822 aforesaid on a certain House and Lot of Land on the Washington road the property of the said Hannah Miller that the said Richard H. May as aforesaid & gave notice that the taxes of the City of Natchez for the year 1822 aforesaid were due and payable in six public places and also had the same inserted in the newspapers published in the said City of Natchez in the words and figures following to wit “Notice is hereby given that the City tax for the present year are due and that I will attend at the City Hall in the City of Natchez on Saturday the first day of June for the purpose of receiving them, those indebted for last year are invited to avail themselves of this notice signed R H May. Collector. Natchez May 25^th 1822” that I the said Richard H May Collector as aforesaid did attend at said City Hall in pursuance of said notice that the said Hannah Miller did not attend at that time and place to pay said Taxes on her aforesaid House and Lot of Land nor did any other person for her. That afterward I called upon her for her said Taxes for the year 1822 but that she did not pay them and that she had not to my knowledge m?? Said City of Natchez Sufficient goods chattels & effects which I could [unclearlooks like distrain, but not discharge] to pay said Taxes. And whereas it is further provided by the said ordinance as aforesaid “That if the tax on any Houses, lots or parts of Lots or land, shall not be paid or satisfied within Twenty five days after one of the said ?? [lists?] shall be put into the hands of said Collector by said ? [the next page is virtually unreadable, but on the third page (78), it does say that the house and property are] “sold by these presents to pay the Taxes due on the same to the City of Natchez in the year 1822 and for the costs and charges of the said ??”

Miller, James and Adelia family

James Miller1 male –10; 2 males 10-24; 1 male 24-36; 2 females –10; 1 female 24-36 (1830 Natchez Census)

James Miller, Recording of free status, 1818

Adams County Chancery Court

Deed Book K

P. 218

James MillerProtection in U.S., 1 Aug., 1818“..personally appeared (in Philadelphia) James Miller of the said City aged twenty two years or thereabouts of the height of five feet seven inches, has dark yellow complexion, black woolly hair and dark eyses, a person worthy of good credit, who being by me duly sworn according to lawdid dispose and say, that he is a native of the City of Philadelphia, and is a free born man of Colour. James Miller. And Elisha Miller the father of the before named James Miller, being also a person worthy of good credit and being by me duly sworn…”

Adelia (Johnson) Miller manumission papers recorded, 1818

Adams County Chancery Court

Deed Book K

P. 224

DeliaManumission by William Johnson, 20 April, 1818“…given me from motives of humanity and benevolence by William Johnson of said place (Natchez), owner of a Mulatto girl named Delia aged about thirteen years, have manumitted and set free from slavery…”

"AN ACT For the Relief of William Hayden and others.

Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives, of the state of Mississippi, in General Assembly convened, That from and after the passage of this act, it shall, and may be lawful for William Hayden, James Miller, and Hannibal, free men of color, to reside within the limits of the state, any law to the contrary, notwithstanding: Provided, that the said William Hayden, James Miller, and Hannibal, do each and severally enter into bond, with good and sufficient securities, in the sum of five hundred dollars each, payable to the Governor, and his successors in office, conditioned for their good behavior and that they will not become a public charge.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted that it shall be the duty of the Judge of Probate of the Countie's in which the said individuals may reside, to take and receive the bond, provided for in the first section of this Act, and file the same in the Clerk's Office of the Court over which he presides.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, that Peter Sewall, a free man of color, shall have leave to reside within the limits of this State, upon his entering into bond with good and sufficient security, in the sum of eight hundred dollars, payable to the Judge of Probate of the county of Wilkison, and his successors in office; conditioned for his good behavior, and that he will not become a public charge.

Ch. B. Green,

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

A. M. Scott, L't. Governor,

and speaker of the Senate.

Approved Feb. 14, 1828.

Gerard C. Brandon."

Miller, Julia

Kitty Spiller35 bf, “FN,” MS w/Julia Miller, 35bf; Ferdinand, 12mm; Eliza, 9mf; Louis, 8mm; Lee?, 5mm; Catherine, 2mf; Maria Spillers, 25 bf; Noah, 5mm; Mary 2mf (1850 Natchez census)

Miller--Louis

July 10, 1837 (Johnson Diary)To day the Sherriff takes Louis Millers Furniture and sells it at the Court House Door for Debt. It was taken. I am told his wife and children & sisters Crying very much when they were taken [then, the footnote explains that “In the previous month William Johnson’s sister, Mrs. James Miller, had written in outraged tone from New Orleans that Louis Miller had there claimed to be James Miller’s brother-in-law. James Miller had denied any kinship. Mrs. Miller to Johnson, June 20, 1837, p. 183].

Milly

Milly, Emancipation by Charles L. Bird, 1803

Adams County Chancery Court

Deed Book C

Pgs. 196-7

Know all men by these Presents that I Charles L. Bird now of Natchez in the Mississippi Territory of the United States for and in consideration of the Sum of one thousand Dollars to me in hand paid at or before the Sealing and delivery hereof the Receipt whereof I do hereby acknowledge and also for divers other good Causes and valuable considerations are hereunto specially moving have Emancipated, Enfranchised and for ever discharged and by these presents for me my heirs Executors

p. 197

and administrators do Emancipate franchise and for ever discharge and do renounce all my title or claim to the Services of a Certain Mullatto Woman named Milly and also her two Children Preston and Thomas In Witness whereof I have hereunto Set my hand and affixed my Seal this the tenth day of February One Thousand eight hundred and three

                  Charles L Bird seal

Milly (fwc) v. Brown, Peter, HNF, 1824

Historic Natchez Foundation

Box 28

File 68

Adams Circt Court

To Nov term 1824

Milly a free

woman of Colour

vs [illegible]

PC Brown

Service acknowledged

2 Sep 1824

P C Brown

Griffith & Quitman

Adams Circt Court.

Of Nov term 1824

Milly a free woman of

Colour

vs [illegible]

Peter C Browne

Filed 2nd Sep. 1824

We the Jury find

For the Pltff &

assess damages

$481.16

Verdict February term 1825

Motion for new trial same

term-----

Motion in arrest of Judgment

& for new trial [illegible] the

Fourth day of April 1825 in

Vacation---

Recorded in Book H page 582

Griffith & Quitman

Peter C. Brown            In the circuit court

Vs                        Adams County

Milly (a free woman of color)            Motion for new trial

The defendant for the following reasons moves the court for a new trial

1st Because the court allowed the plaintiff to give in evidence, her deed of manumission (here insert the deed) without having first proven that it had been obtained pursuant to the laws of Louisiana.

2nd      The court decided that the deed of Manumission as exhibited, was sufficient evidence of the freedom of the plaintiffand that it was not necessary to prove that the deed of manumission had been obtained pursuant to the laws of Louisiana

3.d      The court decided that it was not competent for the defendant to prove, that the deed^ of manumission in the State of Louisiana, was obtained by fraud.

4th      The court decided that the defendant could not prove that the plaintiff and her owner lived in the State of Mississippi at the time the deed of manumission was obtained in the State of Louisiana.

5th       The verdict of the jury was against law and evidence.

Copy waived

Griffith & Quitman      S. M. Graydon

Plffs Att            Defts. Atty

P.C. Brown      1st PointThat the country in which a contract is madethe laws of it, will in

act?            General govern the construction of the contract.--

Milly      2nd      A contract made in one country which is valid by the laws of that country will be enforced by all other countriesif it do not occasion a prejudice to the rights of the other governments, or their citizens

3.d      A contract made in one country but with a view to be carried into execution in another country must be governed by the laws of the country where      It is to be executed.

Peter C. Brown            In the Circuit Court

Ads                  Adams County

Milly (a free woman of color)

Be it remembered that on the trial of the above cause, after the plaintiff had exhibited and read her deed of manumission (here insert the deed) as having been made in the State of Louisianathe defendant called upon the plaintiff to prove that the laws of Louisiana had been regularly pursued in procuring the manumission of the plaintiff which the Court decided to be unnecessary

--the defendant then, offered to prove that at the time the said Milly, was manumitted she and the owner of her, were both residents of the State of Mississippiconsequently and that the deed of manumission was obtained in the state of Louisiana by false representation and by fraud.which the court overruled.

To which decisions of the court the defendant excepted.which exception he prays may be signed and sealed and made a part of the record in the above cause--&c.

            J Child? (L.S)

Dr. John

Please give Milly her free papers out of the suit of Milly vs Brown

            Yrs

            Wm B Griffith

[HNF note: Seeks to settle a note for $550. Found for plaintiff. Defendant claimed plaintiff gained freedom by fraud in Louisiana. Folder includes note "Please give Milly her free paper out of the suit Milly vs Brown." See case 28-66].

Mima

Bersantee Hernandez, 1814

Adams County Chancery Court

Will Book 1

P. 113

It is my will and desire, and I do hereby direct my Executor herein after mentioned, that in ten? Years after the Death of my said beloved Mother Andraea? Hernandez to emanumit [sic] and set free for life a certain negro girl by the name of Mima

[Not all transcribed, but these are the relevant points regarding free blacks]

Miney (and son Samuel)

Manumission of Miney and son Samuel by Isaac W. Arthur, 1836

Adams County Chancery Court

Deed Book X

P. 182

Alford notes that that Miney was c. 35 and Samuel was 9,

Recorded in Alford, Terry L. “Some Manumissions Recorded in the Adams County Deed Books in Chancery Clerk’s Office, Natchez, Mississippi, 1795-1835,” Journal of Mississippi History 33, (Feb. 1971): 39-50.

Minor

P Minor1 male 10-24; 1 female –10; 1 female 24-36 (1840 Natchez census)

Miscellaneous people whose names are not listed

May 4, 1850 (Johnson Diary)Dr. Broom sells at auction to day a poor woman and her 3 children that was set free by a Mr-------who was the father of her children. Seventeen hundred dollars was what they sold for. Purchased by Mr Yorke

Mitchell

Charlotte Mitchell1 female 36-55 (3 slaves2 males –10; 1 female 55-100) (1840 Natchez census)

Mitchum/Mitchel

Arthur Mitchel1 fpc (Census of 1818, Adams County)