« ПретходнаНастави »
debts of Joshua Mauran, Jun., whatever the ence that that instrument can be correctly un. amount might be. Whereas, the case shows derstood and construed. In the construction that such a liability was proposed to the de- of all instruments, to ascertain the intention of fendant by Edward Bullus, and rejected by the the parties is the great object of the court; and defendant; this simple indemnity against un. this is especially the case in acting upon guar. avoidable injury being substituted in its stead. anties.
The letter being addressed to Edward Bullus The guaranty under consideration, in the before the copartnership of Mauran & Bullus, first place, refers to the fact that Bullus, to and in contemplation thereof, cannot be con- whom it was addressed, was about to form a sidered as a contract with any her person connection in the mercantile business in the than Edward Bullus. That the plaintiff so city of New York, with the son of guarantor. considers it by bringing the action in the name and from the evidence, it appears that he was of Bullus; and that in order to support the well acquainted with the nature and extent of action it is necessary to prove a payment and that partnership, for he had read the articles of advance of money by said Bullus individually. I ropartnership, or the memoranda from which Consequently, that a payment from the funds, they were drawn. As it appears from tho of Mauran & Bullus, by the authority of Mau. statement of Bonney, that the articles were ran & Bullus, will not support said action in drawn in August, and placed in the hands of the name of Edward Bullus. Story on Part- Bullus, who returned them with the blanks nership, p. 350 to 355, and authorities there filled and some alterations, there can be little cited.
i doubt that the defendant below read them 533*] *Under the second exception, Mr. while at New York. That he was well acWhipple contended that Mauran & Bullus, by quainted with the conditions of the partnership taking the whole property of Joshua Mauran, his son testifies. Jun., into their possession, and upon their fail. With this knowledge we come to the next ure assigning the uncollected debts and other sentence in the guaranty, which is, “And as property to their assignees, instead of placing the said Joshua Mauran, Jun., having been, it under the management of the defendant, have and is at this time prosecuting mercantile busiassumed the ownership of the debts and other ness in that city on his own account.” property, and discharged the defendant from
It will be recollected, that in the articles of any liability, if any liability ever existed. copartnership, Joshua Mauran, Jun., cove
Mr. Z. Collins Lee and Mr. Southard, for the nanted that he would give to his partner satisdefendants in error, contended,
factory security that he would pay all the debts 1. That the letter of guaranty, in question which he then owed, and all the responsibilities was an absolute and unequivocal indemnity to incurred by him, in carrying on his former Edward Bullus against all loss and damage in business, without drawing upon the partnersettling up the old concern of Joshua Mauran, ship fund. Of this covenant the defendant Jun., and could be construed in no other way, below not only had full notice, but it was and must be liberally interpreted according to proved that on his return from New York to the fair intentions of the parties to it. Providence, he took with him a bond drawn by
2. That being a guaranty to Edward Bul- the person who drew the articles of copartnerlus, individually, and he alone being the party ship, binding him to pay the debts of his son. to the contract, he was alone injured, and This bond he did not execute, but wrote to therefore the suit was properly brought in his Bullus the letter of guaranty. own name, and not that of the firm-and it
With these facts in view, after stating the made no difference in principle, whether he fact that his son had been in business in New paid the advances out of the partnership fund York as above, and that Bullus was about comor not. As in point of fact he had furnished mencing a partnership with him, the defendant all the capital to the new firm, and it was there says, "Now, therefore, in consideration of the fore his own fund.
same, and at the request of Joshua Mauran, The following cases as to the first point Jun., I hereby agree to bear you harmless, in (Construction of letters of guaranty) were regard to the closing up and settlement of the eited: Mason v. Pritchard, 12 East, 227; Flagg said Joshua Mauran, Jun.'s former business. v. Upham, 10 Piek. 147; Drummond v. Prest. And I hereby guaranty you against "any (*535 man, 12 Wheat. 519; Douglass v. Reynolds, 7 loss you may sustain from the former business Peters, 117; and Lee v. Dick, 10 Peters, 490. of said Joshua Mauran, Jun.”
On the 2d point cited: Collyer on Partner Now, looking at the facts connected with the ship, 446, 447; Gow on Partnership, 123; Story guaranty, and the circumstances under which on Partnership, 354. Also the cases of Alexan- it was given, there would seem to be no doubt der v. Barker, 2 Cromp. & Jervis, 133, 138; of the understanding and intention of the parRobson v. Drummond, 2 Barn. & Adol. 83, and ties. Bullus having a capital of nearly thirty the counsel referred generally to the cases thousand dollars, he was unwilling to advance named in the note to Story on Partnership, it as the stock of the new firm unless he should 354.
be indemnified against the debts which had grown out of the former business of his part
And Joshua Mauran, Sen., with the Mr. Justice M'Lean, delivered the opinion of view of securing so considerable a capital, and the court:
80 advantageous a connection in business for The questions in this case arise on the in. his son, was willing to indemnify Bullus structions of the court; and they, very prop- against these debts. And he preferred the ezly, as we think, refer the jury to the facts guaranty to the bond which was prepared. and circumstances under which the guaranty The latter would have imposed an uncondi. was given. It is only by such refer. (*5341 tional obligation to pay these debts, whilst the
former only required him to pay Bullus the sum | bear Bullus "harmless in regard to the closing advanced by him in discharge of them.
up and settlement of the said Joshua Mauran, But it is earnestly contended that as these | Jun.'s former business." Here is a strong recdebts were paid by the firm, and not by Bullusognition of an agency by Bullus in the settleonly, he cannot maintain an action in his own ment of these debts. To sustain the credit of name on the guaranty. It is very clear that the firm it was necessary to pay the debts in the firm could not maintain an action on this question; and we find that in a very short instrument. The indemnity was personal and time after the firm commenced business the limited to Bullus.
payments of these debts were commenced, and But the best answer to this argument is the such payments were made from time to time tinding of the jury, under the instruction of by the firm until near the time of its failure. the court. They were instructed "that if, The moneys received from the debts due to the from the evidence, they should find at the previous concern were credited on the books time of signing the letter of guaranty, it was of the firm, and the payments made by it on understood both by the plaintiff and the de. the same account were charged. But (*537 fendant that the plaintiff was to be at liberty the mode of keeping the account by the firm to pay the debts of Joshua Mauran, Jun., either can have no bearing in the case, as the facts out of his own private funds, or out of the found by the jury obviate all objections on this partnership funds; and in either case the plain- ground. tiff was to be entitled to indemnify therefor, Suppose Bullus had been charged on the under the letter of guaranty," etc., they should books of the firm with the moneys paid in disfind for the plaintiff. They did so find, and charge of the debts, the objection as to the consequently the facts hypothetically stated in partnership interest could not in that case be the instruction are established. And the only made. But the money thus applied would question that can arise on this part of the in- have been no more the money of Bullus than struction is, whether the facts found were prop- that which was paid by the firm. The facts erly submitted to the jury.
found by the jury present the case in its true Now, out of what fund these debts were to character, and give a strong equity to the be paid could not be a matter of any impor plaintiff below. Generally, all instruments of tance, it would seem, to the guarantor. The suretyship are construed strictly as mere matobjection that Bullus cannot recover, because ters of legal right. The rule is otherwise where the debts were paid with the partnership funds, they are founded on a valuable consideration. under the circumstances, is purely technical. But in the present case the relationship of Every dollar of the money thus paid, though Mauran, the partner, and the guarantor, con536*] used in the partnership name, was in nected with the other circumstances, constitute fact the money of Bullus. To meet this tech- as clear a case for indemnity as could well be nical objection, and carry out the intention of imagined. That the debts of Mauran, Jun., the parties, we think the instruction was prop. were paid by Bullus or with his assent, in virer. The facts on which it was founded did not tue of the guaranty, there is no reason to contradict the written agreement, nor, in any doubt. Indeed, this fact is substantially found degree, affect the liability of the party beyond by the jury. the clear import of the guaranty.
The assignment by the firm of the uncollected By the articles of copartnership either part debts of Joshua Mauran, Jun., to Robinson ner, with the consent in writing of the other, i does not release the guarantor. In this respect might withdraw from the firm any amount of the instruction of the court was correct. The money. This was known to the guarantor. jury were directed if they should find for the And also the fact that the whole capital of Bul. plaintiff to deduct from the amount thus found lus was paid into the firm. If this be admitted, the full value of the debts of Joshua Mauran, it followed that any payments made by Bullus Jun., which had been assigned by the firm, and in discharge of the debts, could only be paid render a verdict for the balance. out of the firm.
The debts of Mauran, Jun., assigned by the The jury also found in pursuance of the lat. firm were proved to be bad, with but one ex. ter part of the same instruction, that Bullus ception; and that appears to have been deductwas a creditor of the firm to the full amount of ed by the jury from the sum paid by the firm, its capital stock.
in discharge of those debts. These facts, found by the jury, disembar Upon the whole, we are satisfied that subrass the case from the technicalities thrown stantial justice has been done between the par. around it by the counsel of the guarantor. ties, by the judgment of the Circuit Court; and They show that it was the understanding of the we think there is no principle of law arising guarantor that Bullus should be indemnified out of the instructions which require a reversal against the previous debts of his partner, of the judgment. It is therefore affirmed. whether he paid them out of the partnership fund or otherwise.
The construction that the guarantor is only bound to indemnify, in case payment of these "EDWARD PRIGG, Plaintiff in Error, (*539 debts had been enforced against Bullus by legal measures, is not sustained by the words of THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYL the instrument.
VANIA, Defendant in Error. In the first place, he was not and could not be made legally responsible for these debts. Writ of error to Supreme Court of Pennsyl. The guarantor, then, must have contemplated a vania-constitutional law-power of Congress voluntary payment, or at least not a payment to legislate concerning extradition of fugitive by legal compulsion. The guarantor agrees to slaves-master has right to reclaim slave
whenever and wherever he can do 80 without, to be to look to the nature and objects of the par. breach of the peace--act of Pennsylvania for- ticular powers, duties, and rights, with all the bidding removal of colored persons from the give to the words of cach just such operation and State for the purpose of enslaving them, un force, consistent with their legitimate meaning, as constitutional and void.
may fairly secure and attain the ends proposed.
It is historically well known that the object of the clause in the Constitution of the United States
relating to persons owing service and labor in one A writ of error to the Supreme Court of Penn State escaping into other States, was to secure to sylvania, brought under the twenty.Afth section of the citizens of the slaveholding States the complete the Judiciary Act of 1789, to revise the judgment right and title of ownership in their slaves, as of that court, on a case involving the construc- property, in every State in the Union into which tion of the Constitution and laws of the United they might escape from the State where they were States.
beld in servitude. The full recognition of this Edward Prigg, a citizen of the State of Mary. right and title was indispensable to the security of land, was indicted for kidnapping, in the Court of this species of property in all the slaveholding Oyer and Terminer of York County, Pennsylvania, States; and, indeed, was so vital to the preservation for having forcibly taken and carried away from of their domestic interests and institutions, that it that county, to the State of Maryland, a negro
cannot be doubted that it constituted a fundamenwoman, named Margaret Morgan, with the design tal article without the adoption of which the Union and intention of her being held, sold, and disposed could not have been formed. Its true design of as a slave for life, contrary to a statute of
was to guard against the doctrines and principles Pennsylvania, passed on the twenty-sixth day of prevailing in the non-slavebolding States, by preMarch, 1826. Edward Prigg pleaded not guilty, venting them from intermeddling with or obstruct. and the jury found a special verdict, on which ing or abolishing the rights of the owners of slaves. judgment was rendered for the Commonwealth of By the general law of nations, no nation is Pennsylvania. The case was removed to the Su bound to recognize the state of slavery as to forpreme Court of the State, and the judgment of the eign slaves witbin its territorial dominions, when Court of Oyer and Terminer was, pro forma, af.
it is opposed to its own policy and institutions, firmed : and the case was carried to the Supreme in favor of the subjects of other nations where Court of the United States, the constitutionality slavery is recognized. If it does it, it is as a matof the law under which the indictment was found, ter of comity, and not as a matter of internation. being denied by the counsel of the State of Mary al right. The state of slavery is deemed to be a land; wbich State had undertaken the defense for mere municipal regulation, founded upon and limEdward Prigg, and prosecuted the writ of error.
ited to the range of the territorial laws. The cause was brought to the Supreme Court, with
The clause in the Constitution of the United the sanction of both the States of Maryland and States relating to fugitives from labor, manifestly Pennsylvania, with a view to have the questions in contemplates the existence of a positive, unquallthe case settled. Margaret Morgan was the slave fied right, on the part of the owner of the slave, for life, under the laws of Maryland, of Margaret
which no State law or regulation can in any way Ashmore, a citizen of that State. In 1832 sbe es qualify, regulate, control, or restrain. Any State caped and fled from the State into Pennsylvania. law or regulation, which interrupts, limits, delays, Edward Prigg, having been duly appointed the or postpones the rights of the owner to the immeagent and attorney of Margaret Ashmore, and bav.
diate command of his service or labor, operates ing obtained a warrant from a justice of the peace
pro tanta, a discharge of the slave therefrom. The of York County, caused Margaret Morgan to be question can never be how much he is discharged taken, as a fugitive from labor, by a constable of from, but whether he is discharged from any, by the State of Pennsylvania, before the magistrate, the natural or necessary operation of the State who refused to take cognizance of the case ; and laws, or State regulations. The question is not thereupon Edward Prigg carried her and her child one of quantity or degree, but of withholding or dren into Maryland, and delivered them to Mar. controlling the incidents of a positive right. garet Ashmore. The children were born in Penn The owner of a fugitive slave has the same right sylvanla; one of them, more than a year after to seize and take him in a State to which he has esMargaret Morgan bad fed and escaped from Mary. caped or fled, that he had in the State from which land.
he escaped ; and it is well known that this right to By the first section of the Act of Assembly of seizure or recapture is universally acknowledged Pennsylvania of 25th March, 1826, It is provided, in all the slaveholding States. The court have not that if any person shall by force and violence take the slightest hesitation in holding, that under and and carry away, or shall by fraud or false pretense in virtue of the Constitution, the owner of the attempt to take, carry away, or seduce any negro slave is clothed with the authority in [*341 or mulatto from any part of the Commonwealth. every State of the Union, to seize and recapture his with a design or intention of selling and disposing slave, wherever he can do it without any breach of of, or keeping or detaining such negro or mulatto the peace, or Illegal violence. In this sense, and as a slave or servant for life, or for any other term to this extent, this clause in the Constitution may wnatsover, such person, and all persons aiding and properly be said to execute itself, and to require abetting him, shall, on conviction thereof, be no aid from legislation, State or national. deemed guilty of a felony, and shall forfeit and The Constitution does not stop at a mere appun. pay a sum not less than five hundred nor more ciation of the rights of the owner to seize his abthan three thousand dollars, and shall be sentenced sconding or fugitive slave in the State to which he to undergo a servitude for any term or terms of may have fled. It it had done so, it would have years, not less than seven years, nor exceeding left the owner of the slave, in many cases, utterly twenty-one years; and shall be confined and kept without any adequate redress. at hard labor, etc. Other provisions are contained The Constitution declares that the fugitive slave in the act; and it was passed in 1826, as declared shall be delivered up on claim of the party to in its title, to aid in carrying into effect the Con whom service or labor may be due. It is exceedstitution and laws of the United States, relating ingly difficult, If not impracticable, to read this to fugitives from labor; and on the application to language, and not to feel that It contemplated some the Legislature, by commissioners from the State further remedial redress than that which might 640*) of Maryland, with a view to meet the sup be administered at the hand of the owner himself. posed wishes of the State of Maryland on the sub "A claim" is to be made. Ject of fugitive slaves : but it had falled to pro "A claim." in a just, juridical sense, is a demand duce the good effects intended.
of some matter as of right, made by one person BY THE COURT : It will, probably be found. upon another to do or to forbear to do some act when we look to the character of the Constitution or thing, as a matter of duty. of the United States itself, the objects which it It cannot well be doubted that the Constitution seeks to attain. the powers which it confers, the requires the delivery of the fugitive on the claim duties wbich it enjoins, and the rights which it of the master; and the natural inference certainly secures : as well as to the known historical fact is, that the national government is clothed with that many of its provisions were matters of com the appropriate authority and functions to enforce promise of opposing interests and opinions ; that it. The fundamental principle applicable to all no uniform rule of interpretation can be applied. cases of this sort would seem to be, that where the which may not allow, even if it does not posi. end is required, the means are given ; and wuere tively demand, many modifications in its actual the duty is enjoined, the ability to perform it is application to particular clauses. Perhaps the saf. I contemplated to exist on the part of the function. est rule of interpretation, after all, will be found aries to whom it is intrusted.
The clause relating to fugitive slaves is found in Union. The owner has the same security, and the the national Constitution, and not in that of any same remedial justice, and the same exemption State. It might well be deemed an unconstitutional from State regulations and control, through bow. exercise of the power of interpretatiou, to insist ever many States he may pass with tbe fugitive that the States are bound to provide means to car- slaves in his possession, in transitu, to bis domicil. ry into effect the duties of the national gover'n- The court are by no means to be understood, in ment, nowhere delegated or intrusted to them by any maner whatever, to doubt or to interfere with the Constitution. On the contrary, the natural, if the police power belonging to the States, in virtue not the necessary conclusion is, that the national of their general sovereignty. That police power government, in the absence of all positive provi-extends over all subjects within the territorial lim. sions to the contrary, is bound, through its own its of the States, and has never been conceded to proper departments, legislative, executive, or ju- the United States. It is wholly distinguishable diciary, as the case may require, to carry into effect from the right and duty secured by the provision all the right and duties imposed upon it by the of the Constitution, relating to fugitive slaves ; Constitution.
which is exclusively derived from the Constitution, A claim to a fugitive slave is a controversy in a and obtains its whole efficiency therefrom. case, "arising under the Constitution of the United The court entertain no doubt whatsoever that States," under the express delegation of judicial the States, in virtue of the general police power, power given by that instrument. Congress, then, possess full jurisdiction to arrest and restrain run. may call that power into activity, for the very pur. away slaves, and to remove them from their bor. pose of giving effect to the right; and if so, then ders, and otherwise to secure themselves against it may prescribe the mode and extent to which It their depredations, and evil example, as [*343 shall be applied, and how and under what circum: they certainly may do in cases of idlers, vagabonds, stances the proceedings shall afford a complete and paupers. The rights of the owners of fugitive protection and guaranty of the right.
slaves are in no just sense interfered with or reguThe provisions of the sections of the Act of Con.lated by such a course ; and in many cases they gress of 12th February, 1793, on the subject of may be promoted by the exercise of the police fugitive slaves, as well as relative to fugitives from power. Such regulations can never be permitted justice, cover both the subjects ; not because they to interfere with or obstruct the just rights of the exhaust the remedies, which may be applied by owner to reclaim his slave derived from the Con. Congress to enforce the rights, if the provisions stitution of the United States, or with the remedies shall be found, in practice, not to attain the objects prescribed by Congress to aid and enforce the of the Constitution ; but because they point out all same. the modes of attaining those objects which con- The act of the Legislature of Pennsylvania upon gress have as yet deemed expedient and proper. In which the indictment against Edward Prigg is this is so, it would seem upon just principles of founded, is unconstitutional and void. It purports construction that the legislation of Congress, if to punish as a public offense against the state the constitutional, must supersede all State legislation very act of seizing and removing a slave by his upon the same subject, and by necessary implica- master, which the Constitution of the United tion prohibit it. For if Congress have a constitu- States was designed to justify and upbold. tional power to regulate a particular subject, and they do actually regulate it in a given manner, and 642°) in . certain form, it cannot be that the N error to the Supreme Court of Pennsyl. State Legislatures have a right to interfere. This doctrine was fully recognized in the case of Hous
The defendant in error, Edward Prigg, with ton v. Moore, 6 Wheat. Rep. 1, 21, 22. Where Congress have exclusive power over' a subject, it Nathan S. Bemis, Jacob Forward, and Stephen 18 not competent for State legislation to add to Lewis, Jun., were indicted by the Grand Jury powers which were necessary and proper, as means first day of April, 1837, upon a certain negro
Congress have, on various occasions, exercised of York County, Pennsylvania, for that, on the to carry into effect rights expressly given, and du woman named Margaret Morgan, with force end belng required, it has been deemed a just and and violence they made an assault, and with necessary implication that the means to accomplish force and violence feloniously did take and It are given also: or, in other words, that the pow. carry her away from the County of York, with. er flows as a necessary means to accomplisb the in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, to the end.
The constitutionality of the act of Congress re- State of Maryland, with a design and intention lating to the fugitives from labor has been affirmed there to sell and dispose of the said Margaret by the adjudications of the State tribunals, and by Morgan, as and for a slave and servant for life. those of the courts of the United States. If the question of the constitutionality of the law were
Edward Prigg, one of the defendants, having one of doubtful construction, such long acquies been arraigned, pleaded not guilty. cence in it, such contemporaneous expositions of
was tried before the Court of it, and such extensive and uniform recognitions, would, in the Judgment of the court, entitle the Quarter Sessions of York County, on the 220 question to be considered at rest. Congress, the day of May, 1839; and the jury found the fol. executive, and the Judiciary, bave, upon various lowing special verdict: occasions, acted upon this as a sound and reason
"That at a session of the General Assembly able doctrine.
The provisions of the act of 12th February, 1793, of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, holden relative to fugitive slaves, is clearly constitu: at the city of Philadelphia, on the first day of tional in all its leading provisions; and, Indeed: March, 1780, the following law was passed and thority on state magistrates, is free from rea- enacted, to wit: “An Act for the gradual abosonable doubt or difficulty. As to the authority so lition of slavery: conferred on State magistrates, while a difference
“1. Sec. III. All persons, as well negroes and of opinion exists, and may exist on this point in different states, whether state magistrates are mulattoes as others, who shall be born within bound to act under it. none is entertained by the this State, shall not be deemed and considered court, that State magistrates may. If they choose, exercise the authority, unless prohibited by State as servants for life, or slaves; and all sertitude legislation.
for life, or slavery of children in consequence The power of legislation in relation to fugitives of the slavery of their mothers, in the case of from labor, 18 exclusive in the national Legisla-all children born within this State from and ture.
The right to selze and retake fugitive slaves, and after the passing of this act as aforesaid, shall the duty to deliver them up, in whatever State of be, and hereby is, utterly taken away, extinthe Union they may be found, is under the Constitution recognized as an absolute positive right and guished, and forever abolished. duty, pervading the whole Union with an equal
“2. Sec. IV. Provided always, that every and supreme force, uncontrolled and uncontrollo negro and mulatto *child born within (*544
The right and duty are co-extensive and uniforin this State after the passing of this act as afore. In remedy and operation throughout the whole said (who would, in case this act had not been
made, have been born a servant for years, or of death shall be pronounced against a slave,
woman, of any the service of such children.
nation or color, except the negroes and mulat. "3. Sec. V. Every person who is or shall be toes who shall be registered as aforesaid, shall the owner of any negro or mulatto slave or at any time hereafter be deemed adjudged or servants for life, or till the age of thirty-one bolden, within the territories of this Commonyears, now within this State, or his lawful at. wealth, as slaves or servants for life, but as torney, shall, on or before the first day of No free men and free women; except the domestic vember next, deliver or cause to be delivered slaves attending upon delegates in Congress in writing to the clerk of the peace of the from the other American States, foreign min. county, or to the clerk of the Court of Sessions isters and consuls, and persons passing through of the city of Philadelphia, in which he or she or sojourning in this state, and not becoming shall respectively inhabit, the name and sur resident therein, and seamen employed in ships name and occupation or profession of such not belonging to any inhabitant of this State, owner, and the name of the county and town- nor employed in any ship owned by any such ship, district or ward wherein he or she resid. inhabitant; provided, such domestic slaves eth; and also the name and names of any such shall not be alienated or sold to any inhabitant, slave and slaves, and servant and servants for nor (except in the case of members of life, or till the age of thirty-one years, within | *foreign ministers and consuls) retained ( 546 this State, who shall be such on the said first in this State longer than six months. day of November next, from all other persons; "9. Sec. XI. (Řepealed 25th March, 1826.) which particulars shall by said clerk of the “Sec. XII. And whereas attempts may be sessions and clerk of the said city court, be en- made to evade this act, by introducing into tered in books to be provided for that purpose this State negroes and mulattoes bound by cov. by the said clerks; and no negro or mulatto now enant to serve for long and unreasonable terms within this State shall from and after the said of years, if the same be not prevented. Therefirst day of November, be deemed a slave or fore, servant for life, or till the age of thirty-one “10. Sec. XIII. No covenant of personal years, unless his or her name shall be entered servitude or apprenticeship whatsoever, shall as aforesaid on such records, except such negro be valid or binding on a negro or mulatto for or mulatto siaves and servants as are herein a longer time than seven years, unless such ser. after excepted; the said clerk to be entitled to vant apprentice were, at the commencement of a fee of two dollars for each slave or servant such servitude or apprenticeship, under the age 80 entered as aforesaid, from the treasury of of twenty-one years; in which case such negro the county, to be allowed to him in his accounts. or mulatto may be holden as a servant or ap
"4. Sec. VI. Provided always, that any per prentice, respectively, according to the cove. 345*) son in whom the ownership or right to nant, as the case shall be, until he or she shall the service of any negro or mulatto shall be attain the age of twenty-eight years, but no vested at the passing of this act, other than longer. such as are hereinbefore excepted, his or her "Sec. XIV. That this act or anything heroheirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, in contained shall not give any relief or shelter and all and every of them, severally, shall be to any absconding or runaway negro or mulatto liable to the overseer of the poor of the city, slave or servant, who has absconded himself or township, or district to which any such negro shall abscond himself from his or her owner, or mulatto shall become chargeable, for such master or mistress, residing in any other State necessary expense, with costs of suit thereon, or country; but such owner, master or mistress as such overseers may be put to, through the shall have like right and aid to demand, claim, neglect of the owner, master, or mistress of such and take away his slave or servant, as he might negro or mulatto, notwithstanding the name have had in case this act had not been made; and other descriptions of such negro or mulatto and that all negro and mulatto slaves now shall not be entered and recorded as aforesaid, owned and heretofore resident in other States, unless his or her master or owner shall, before who have absconded themselves or been clan. such slave or servant obtain his or her twenty-destinely carried away, or who may be em. eighth year, execute and record in the proper ployed abroad as seamen, and have not ab. county, a deed or instrument securing to such sconded or been brought back to their owners, slave or servant his or her freedom.
masters, or mistresses before the passing of “6. Sec. VIII. In all cases wherein sentence this act, may within five years be registered as