To all whom these presents shall come greeting J. Josias Wm Dallam of Harford County in the State of MarylandMaryland for Diver good causes and considerations me thereunto moveing do hereby Declare free manumit and enfranchise the negros following to wit Cromwell. to be free at the expiration of To years: Malborough at the expiration of four years, Orange at the Expiration of five years Lemon at the Expiration of Eleven years HannahHannah at the Expiration of Thirteen years Nance at the Expiration of Fifteen years Sook at the Expiration of Seventeen years from the Date of this my mannumission . all the Children or Childrans Children on that my Desend from said Negroes and be born in Slavery from the Date hereof Shall be free at Twenty three years of age hereby acknowledgeing the said Negros Discharged from all claim of service and Right of Property whatever from me my heirs Execu-tors administrators at the Periods above specified as witness hand and seal this thirteenth day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven

On the sixteenth day of March in the year of our Lord 1787 personally appeared before me the subscriber one of the Justices of the peace for the County aforesaid Josias Wm Dallam Party to the within Instrument of writing who acknowl edged the said instrument to be his act and deed and the signature and seal thereto annexed to be Respectively his

Received to be recorded the 10th Day of April 1787. Same day Recorded and examined by

I hereby certify that the within and foregoing is truly Transcribed from Liber S. L G. NH folio 77&c one of the Land Record books of Harford Circuit CourtCounty Court

I Stevenson ArcherArcher Chief Judge of the Sixth Judicial District of MarylandMaryland composed of BaltimoreBaltimore & Harford Counties hereby Certify that the aforegoing attestation of HenryHenry DorseyDorsey Clerk of Harford Circuit CourtCounty Court is in due form & by the proper officer

I hereby Certify that Stevenson ArcherArcher gentleman who has signed the within and foregoing certificate was at the time of So doing Presiding Judge of the Sixth Judicial District of MarylandMaryland Composed of BaltimoreBaltimore and Hartford Counties duly commissioned and sworn

Cost $ 0.53 3/4

Conelius Flim

5.53

3.00

1.00

87

10.40

The petition of Lemman DuttonLemman Dutton a free girl of color by Grace DuttonDutton her mother and next friend respectfully represents that her grandmother HannahHannah was a slave owned by one Josias Wil-liam DallamDallam in the state of MarylandMaryland and that the said DallamDallam while he so owned the said HannahHannah as a slave on the thirteenth day of March in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven executed a deed of manumis-sion by which he emancipated the said HannahHannah at the expiration of thirteen years from the date of said deed with the provision in said deed that all the children or childrens children that might deseend from said HannahHannah and he born in slavery after the date of said deed should be free at twenty three years of age. Your petitioner represents that her mother named Grace was the daughter of the said HannahHannah and was born about the year seventeen hundred and ninety two and that your petitioner was born about the month of June in the year eighteen hundred and sixteen and after her mother the said Grace had passed the age of twenty three years. your petitioner further states that the said Grace is now in the enjoyment of her liberty but that your petition-er is held as a slave by John PacaJohn Paca within the county of St LouisSt Louis who claims your petitioner as his property having obtained your petitioner as the property of his wife who is the daughter of the said Jusias WilliamWilliam DallamDallam. wherefore your petitioner prays that she may he permitted to sue as a poor person to recover her freedom and that counsel be assigned her according to law and your petitioner as is Duty bound &c.

Teste

This day personally appeared before the undersigned a justice of the peace of St LouisSt Louis county Grace DuttonDutton who being by me duly sworn upon her oath says that the facts stated in the fore-giving petition she belives to be true

On the foregoing petition it is ordered that Lemman DuttonLemman Lemman DuttonDutton the petitioner be permitted to sue as a poor person to establish her freedom and that H R Gam-ble be assigned as petitioners counsel. It is also ordered that the petitioner have reasonable liberty of attending her counsel and the court when occasion may require and that she be not removed out of the jurisdiction of the Circuit court of St LouisSt Louis county nor be subject to any severity because of her application for freedom

Lemman DuttonLemman Lemman DuttonDutton a free woman of colour by H R GambleH R Gamble counsel assigned to her com plains of John PacaJohn Paca of a plea of Trespass For That the said defendant heretofore to wit on the first day of June in the year enghteen hundred and thirty four with force and arms at the County aforesaid an assault did make in and upon the said plaintiff and her the said plaintiff then and there did beat bruise and ill treat and did then and there imprison the said plaintiff and hath ever since kept and detain-ed the said plaintiff in prison and in slavery and still holds the said plaintiff in slavery she the said plaintiff at the time of committing the said grievances and from thence hitherto and now being a free person to wit at the County aforesaid and other wrongs to the said plaintiff then and there did to the great damage of the said plaintiff and against the peace and dignity of the state and the said plaintiff saith she hath sustained damage to the amount of five hundrend dollars & therefore she sues &c

We command you to summon John PacaJohn Paca that he be and appear before the Judge of our circuit court at the next term there of to be held at the city of St LouisSt Louis within and for the county of St LouisSaint Louis on the fourth monday of July instant this and there to answer unto Lemman DuttonLemman Dutton a free woman of color of a plea of trespass said plaintiff saith she hath sustained damage to the amount of five hundred dollars and have you then there this

On the foregoing petitioned it is ordered that Lemman DuttonLemman Lemman DuttonDutton the petitioner be permitted to sue as a poor person to establish her freedom and that H R GambleH R Gamble be assigned as petitioners counsel. It is also ordered that the petitioner have reasonable liberty of attending her counsel and the court when occasion may require and that she be not removed out of the jurisdiction of the Circuit CourtCircuit Court of St Louis County nor be subject to any severity because of her application for freedom —

Executed this writ on Joshua Paca on the 12th July 1834 by offering to read to to him the writ and declaration in the city of St LouisSt Louis which he refused to hear and I did at the same time make him acquainted with the contents of the order of the Judge of the Circuit CourtCircuit Circuit CourtCourt permitting the plaintiff to sue

Lemman DuttonLemman Dutton vs John PacaJohn John PacaPaca

Narr

This is an action of Assault & Battery & false imprisonment to recover freedom

Let a summons issue

And the said John PacaJohn Paca the defendant, by Edward BatesE. Bates his attorney, comes & defends the force & injury when &c and says that he is not guilty of the wrongs & trespasses above laid to his charge, in manner & form as the said Lemman has above in her declaration alleged, and of this he puts himself upon the Country.

And for a further plea in this behalf the said defendant says that the said Lemman ought not to have & maintain her action aforesaid against him, because he says that at the said time when &c , the said Lemman was a slave, without that she Lemman was at the said time a free person, in manner and form as the said Lemman has above in her declaration supposed , and of this he puts himself upon the county

Lemman DuttonLemman Dutton vs John PacaJohn Paca

Pleas - 1. not guilty 2d. pltff a slave.

Judgment for plff - Book 8 page 41

Bill of exceptions - 48

Dismissed book 9 - page 52

Be it remembered that on the trial of this cause, the same being submitted for trial to the court, nei-ther party requiring a jury ; the plaintiff read in evidence the following acts of the legislature of MarylandMaryland, to writ, "An act to on called slaves being set free on the manumission of slaves by any last will or testament" made at a of began that at the City of AnnapolisCity of City of AnnapolisAnnapolis the 3d June 1752 "An act to continue the act of therein mentioned "made at a of began the at the City - of Annapolis to the 6th November 1786, which act of the legislature of MarylandMaryland so read in evidence are not herein set forth, it being by the of both parties herto that the law may be read the same advantage had at given to the in the Supreme CourtSupreme Court on as if they come in corpo-rated in this bill - the plff : the to read in evidence with its authentication there on endor-sed, writing purporting to be an authenti-cated copy from one of the land record books of Har-ford County in the state of MarylandMaryland, which paper writing fits - authentication are in the words of figures following (here insert same) to the reading of which the Deft by his council objected but the Court over - ruled the objection & permitted the same to be read, to which the defts by him counsel excepts.

The plff: then read in evidence said paper con-tring fits - authentication & that HannahHannah one of the named in said paper writing was the mother of Grace who is the mother of the plff. fits was admitted that HannahHannah at the time ap-pointed for her liberation is said paper writing has fifty - years of age & capable of main-taining herself - that Grace was born in the year 1792 & the : her child was born after grace had papers the age of twenty three years and that the defendant held the plaintiff in slavery at the commencement of this suit. There being no other evidence on either side , the deft upon the fore- going testimony moved the Court to decide that upon the case made the plff: was not entitled to freedom but the court refused so to decide & decided that upon the case made the plff: was entitled to freedom, to which decision the Deft. by his councel excepts - prays the court to sign & seal these his exceptions, which is done accordingly

Lemman Sutton vs John PacaJohn Paca

Bill of Exceptions

Suits for freedom

There three cases having been decided in favor of the plaintiffs and bills of exceptions taken in them all, showing that they depend on the same facts & principles, it is agreed by the parties that one of the cases shall he taken up to the Supreme CourtSupreme Supreme CourtCourt, & the other two abide the judgement of the Supreme CourtSupreme Court, in the case to be taken up, and judgments entered in this court accordingly

Dutton's vs Paca

Error to Circuit CourtSt Louis Circuit Court.

Now at this day come again the parties aforesaid by their attornies and the Court here being now sufficiently advised of and concerning the premises, do consider that the judgment aforesaid in form aforesaid by the said Circuit CourtCircuit Court rendered be reversed and for nought held and esteemed and it is further considered that the said cause be remanded to the said Circuit CourtCircuit Court for further proceedings therein in con-formity with the opinion of this Court herein delivered, and that the said defendant in error recover of the said Lemman DuttonLemman Dutton, the plaintiff in error, his costs and charges by him about his defence against said writ of Error in this behalf expended and that he have thereof execution. / So much of this entry as adjudges costs against the defendant in error is rescinded. M. McGirk president of the Court

Opinion delivered by McGirkMcGirk Justice

DuttonDutton the plaintiff is a woman of color suing for freedom it appears that in the 1752 the colonial legislature of MarylandMaryland passed an act authorising persons owning negro slaves of a certain description to set them free under certain restrictions that on or about the year 1787 one Josias owned and possessed the grandmother of the defendant in error as a slave and that said DallamDallam did by a deed under his hand and seal attested by one witness and duly recorded emancipate said grandmother to take effect in future and that by said deed the mother of the defendant in error also became free according to the terms of said deed and the defendant in error also claims by said deed to be free the defendant in error had a judgment of freedom in the Circuit CourtCircuit Court and the plaintiff has brought the cause up by Writ of Error.

On the trial the plaintiff in that Court offered in evidence a certified copy of the deed of emancipation which was objected to by the dependant. the Act of the MarylandMaryland legislature provides that the deed of emancipation shall be recorded in the office of the clerk of the Circuit CourtCounty Court where the deed is made and that a copy of the Registry shall be evidence of the fact of Emancipation. the first objection made to receiving this copy is that it is not the best evidence the nature of the case admits of and that the original alone in this case will suffice the defendant in error replies to this the 1st Sec. of the 4th art of the Constitution which says that full faith and credit shall be given in each State of the public acts records and judicial proceedings of every other State and the congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such records and proceedings shall be proved and the effect thereof and also the Act of Congress of the 27th March 1804 Ingersols digest 76 and 77 which declares that "from and after the passage of all records and exemplifications of office books which are or may be kept in any public office of any state not appertaining to a Court shall be proved or admitted in any other Court &c on being authenticated in a certain way. The Act after some other regulations as to the authentication proceeds to declare that the said records and exemplifications authenticated as aforesaid shall have such faith and credit given to them in every Court and office within the United StatesUnited States as they have by law or usage in the Courts or offices of the State from whence the same are or shall be taken" it appears to us there is according to this Act of CongressCongress no room for dispute the MarylandMaryland Act expressly declares that the copy shall be evi-dence of the fact of Manumission the copy must have the same effect here if it be duly authenticated. Let us now proceed to enquire whether the copy is so authen-ticated that it can be received in evidence. there is no objection made to the first certificate of the Clerk by which he testifies that the paper is a perfect copy. the Clerk certifies as the Clerk of Hartford Circuit CourtCounty Court of MarylandMaryland the Judge then certifies as follows, to wit. MarylandMaryland Hartford County Sct. I Stephen Archer Chief Judge of the sixth Judicial district of MarylandMaryland composed of Balimore and Hartford Counties hereby certify that the foregoing attestation of HenryHenry DorseyDorsey Clerk of Hartford Circuit CourtCounty Circuit CourtCourt is in due form and by the proper officer. then HenryHenry DorseyDorsey certifies as follows I certify that Steven ArcherArcher who has signed the within and foregoing certificate was at the time of so doing presiding Judge of the sixth Judicial District of MarylandMaryland composed of BaltimoreBaltimore and Hartford counties duly commissioned and Sworn it is objected by the Counsel for Paca that these certificates do not pursue the act of congress it is argued by Mr AllenAllen for the plaintiff in error that the certificate of the Judge should in itself contain an afffirmation that the Judge was presiding judge of the Circuit CourtCounty Court of Hartford County and that the certificate of the Clerk as to the official character of the judge should affirm that the judge is presiding Judge of Hartford Circuit CourtCounty Court. it is our opinion that it should appear by the certificate of the clerk when he comes to certify as to the official character of the Judge that the judge is pre-siding Judge or Justice of the Court of which he is Clerk this has not been done but the

Certificate affirms that ArcherArcher is presiding Judge of the district composed of BaltimoreBaltimore and Hartford Counties without saying he is presiding Judge of any Court whatever. the Act says the certificate of the Clerk or keeper of the Record shall be accompanied with a certificate of the Clerk if the certificate as to the Clerk be given by a presiding Justice of a Court with a cer-tificate of the Clerk that he shall certify that the presiding Justice is duly commissioned and qualified by these papers and by the emancipation act of MarylandMaryland it appears the registry the copy offered is an exemplification of right should be kept and made by a Clerk of a Court and that was the Clerk of the Circuit CourtCounty Court of Hartford what the presiding Judge of the district composed of BaltimoreBaltimore and Hartford counties had to do with the Circuit CourtCounty Court of Hartford we cannot easily see if by virtue of Judge ArcherArcher being presiding Judge of the district he is presiding Judge or rather Justice of the Circuit CourtCounty Court of Hartford the style of his certificate should have so declared.

Another objection taken to the final certificate of the Clerk is that it says the Judge was duly commissioned and sworn and the Act of congress says the certificate shall say duly commissioned and qualified it is best to pursue the very words of the Act we are not entirely certain that congress meant by the word qualified no more than that which is comprehended by the word sworn.

The admission of the copy as evidence was erroneous and for that the Judgment is reversed. but the Counsel on both sides have expressed a desire to have the opinion of this Court on the effect of the Deed of Emancipation of DallamDallam to the Ancestor of the petitioner for freedom. We will as the case is property before us proceed to do so.

That part of the Act to be considered declares that when any person shall be possessed of a slave or slaves who are or shall be of a healthy constitution sound in mind and body capable by labor to procure to himself sufficient food and raiment with other requisite necessaries of life and not exceeding fifty years of age such owner being willing and desirous to set free or manumit such slave or slaves may by writing under his hand and seal evidenced by two good and sufficient witnesses at least grant such slave or slaves his or her freedom and that any deed or writing whereby freedom shall be given or granted to any such slave which shall be intended to take place in future shall be good to all intents constitutions and purposes whatever from the time that such freedom or manumission is intended to commence by the said deed or writing so that such deed and writing be not in prejudice of creditors and that such slave at the time of such freedom or manumission shall take place or commence be not above the age aforesaid and be able to work and gain a sufficient livelihood and maintenance according to the true intent and meaning of this Act which Instrument of writing shall be acknowledged before oen Justice of the peace of the County where the person or persons granting such freedom resides which Jus-tice shall indorse on the back of such Instrument the time of the acknowledgment of the party making the same which he or they or the party concerned shall cause to be entered among the Records of the Circuit CourtCounty Court where the persons or persons granting such free-dom shall reside within six months after the date of such Instrument "the Act then provides for making a copy and declares the same to be evidence of the fact of freedom. It appears that the deed in question under which the party claims freedom by reason of her descent from her grandmother who was freed by the deed was only attested by one witness Paca's counsel contend that the deed must be attested by two witnesses the Counsel for the petitioner contend that the Statute provides a mode of manumission for two classes of persons the first part provides for manumitting those whose freedom is to commence immediately and in that case requires a deed sealed and attested by two witnesses and that when this is done and the deed delivered to the slave he is free and that as to those whose freedom is to commence in future the law seems neither to require a deed nor witnesses but requires a wri-ting or deed which is to be acknowledged in solemn form before a Justice of the peace and to be recorded &c. We are of opinion the petitioner's Counsel are right in their view of the act if all that part of the Statute which procedes the words "and that" were Stricken out yet the balance of the Statute would be perfectly intelligible and no word would or need be lost or expunged to make the meaning clear and complete: the Statute would then read that when any person owns a slave and is desirous to set him free the freedom to commence in future the same can be done by a deed or Instrument in writing but the Instrument must be acknow-ledged before a Justice of the peace of the County and must be recorded provided the slave at the time his freedom is to commence is not over 50 years of age and is capable by labour to support himself &c. Now all this can clearly be well made out without any reference whatever to that part of the Act which requires a deed under seal to be attested by two witnesses. So on the other hand all before the the words and that may be completely cut of from the balance and both the sense and object of that part will be complete and then the case will be made out as to the mode of Emancipation in presenti. So for then as regard the petitioner's right depending on the MarylandMaryland statute our opinions is for the petitioner. But for the errors aforesaid the Judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

I, John RulandJohn Ruland, Clerk of the Supreme CourtSupreme Court for the third Judicial District of the MissouriState of

MissouriMissouri do hereby certify the above and foregoing to be a true transcript of the Judgment rendered and of the opinion delivered by the Supreme CourtSupreme Court at the June Term thereof in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty six, in the Case Paca vs DuttonDutton, as the same now remains in my office.

DuttonDutton vs Paca

Judgment & opinion