Charles Mahoney v. John Ashton. Transcript from Prince George's County Court

 

The State of Maryland, Sct

At a General Court of the Western Shore of the said State one of the United States of America. begun and held at the City of Annapolis on the second Tuesday of May being the fourteenth day of the same month, in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety nine. And in the Twenty third Year of the Independence of the said United States of America.

Present.

The Honorable Jeremiah Townley Chase Esquire Chief Judge.
Gabriel Duvall and John Done. Esquires Judges
John Welch Esquire Sheriff of Ann Arundel County
John Gwinn, Clerk

In the Record of Proceedings of the same Court, among others, is the following, to wit:

Charles Mahoney
against
Revd John Ashton.

Be in Remembered that on the Eighteenth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety one. Charles Mahoney by Gabriel Duvall his Attorney exhibited to the Judges of the General Court here in Court sitting his Petition for Freedom against the Reverend John Ashton in the words and figures following, to wit.

To the honourable the Judges of the General Court.

The Petition of Charles Mahoney humbly sheweth

That he is held in Slavery by the Reverend John Ashton of Prince Georges County, although he is entitled to his Freedom, being descended from a free Woman named Anne Joice. He therefore prays your Honours to order Summons of his Witness consider his Case. and discharge him from the further custody of the said John Ashton upon your Petitioners proving the facts stated And he will pray and so forth

Gl Duvall for Petrs

Whereupon it is ordered by the Court here that the said Reverend John Ashton of Prince Georges County do not remove the aforesaid Charles Mahoney out of this State nor obstruct him from attending this Court from time to time in support of his petition for Freedom preferred against him the said Reverend John Ashton and in the mean time to feed, Cloath and use the said Petitioner well: And at the prayer of the aforesaid Charles Mahoney by his Attorney aforesaid Summons is ordered by the Court here to issue to the Sheriff of Prince Georges County against the said Reverend John Ashton actionable immediately to answer the Petition aforesaid which accordingly issued in the words and figures following to wit,

The State of Maryland Sct To the Sheriff of Prince Georges County Greeting. We command you that you summons the Reverend John Ashton that all delays and excuses set aside he be and appear before the Judges of our General Court at Annapolis immediately to answer unto the Petition of Charles Mahoney preferred against him for Freedom here   2 he is not to fail, and fail not at your peril, and have you then and there this writ. Witness the Honorable Samuel Chase Esquire, Chief Judge of our said Court the 11th day of October Anno Domini 1791.

Jno Gwinn, Clk

Issued the 18th day of October 1791. (G.D.

And thereupon afterwards to wit, in this same Term, that is to say: October Term in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety one, comes again into the General Court here the aforesaid Charles Mahoney by Gabriel Duvall his Attorney aforesaid; And the Sheriff of Prince Georges County to wit. Edward Lloyd Wailes Gentleman, to whom the aforegoing precept was made and directed likewise comes and makes return thereof, to the Court here, this endorsed, to wit "Sumd Edwd Lloyd Wailes Shff."

And the said John Ashton by William Cooke his Attorney appears in Court here, and defends the Complaint aforesaid when and so forth, and prays leave to the Court to Imparle hereunto until the second Tuesday of May next, and he hath it, the same day is given to the aforesaid Charles Mahoney also

At which said second Tuesday of May being the eighth day of the same month in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety two comes again into the General Court here as well the aforesaid Charles Mahoney by his Attorney aforesaid as the said John Ashton by his Attorney aforesaid. And the said John Ashton by his Attorney aforesaid as before defends the Complaint aforesaid when and so forth, and prays further leave of the Court here to Imparle hereunto until the second Tuesday of October next, and he hath it. the same day is given to the aforesaid Charles Mahoney also

At which said second Tuesday of October being the Eighth day of the same month in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety three, comes again into the General Court here, as well the aforesaid Charles Mahoney by his Attorney aforesaid, as the said John Ashton by his Attorney aforesaid: And the aforesaid Charles Mahoney by his Attorney aforesaid prays that the Courts Commission may issue for the City of London in the Kingdom of Great Britain to examine Evidence in this Cause, and that the Depositions   3 returned with the said Commission may be read in evidence on the Trial hereof: and it is granted him; Whereupon the aforesaid Charles Mahoney and the said John Ashton by their Attornies aforesaid come again into Court and pray that the same Commission may be directed to Joshua Johnson William Murdock Horatio Clagett and James Brookes Gentlemen of the City of London in the Kingdom of Great Britain aforesaid or any three or two of them to examine &ca returnable with all convenient speed &ca And the same is issued accordingly: Thereupon further process of and upon the premisses aforesaid, between the parties aforesaid by consent of the said parties and their Attornies aforesaid, and by order of the Court here thereon, is continued untill the second Tuesday of May next following.

At which said second Tuesday of May being the thirteenth day of the same month in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety four, comes again into the General Court here, as well the aforesaid Charles Mahoney by his Attorney aforesaid as the said John Ashton by his Attorney aforesaid. But the Commissioners aforesaid to whom that Commission aforesaid was in form aforesaid directed have not made return thereof to the Court here. Thereupon further process of and upon the premisses aforesaid, between the parties aforesaid by consent of the said parties and their Attornies aforesaid, and by order of the Court here thereon, is further continued until the second Tuesday of October next following

At which said second Tuesday of October being the fourteenth day of the same month in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety four comes again into the General Court here, as well the aforesaid Charles Mahoney by his Attorney aforesaid, as the said John Ashton by his Attorney aforesaid. But the Commissioners aforesaid to whom the Commission aforesaid was in form aforesaid directed have not made return thereof to the Court here. Thereupon further process of and upon the premisses aforesaid, between the parties by consent of the said parties and their Attornies aforesaid, and by order of the Court here thereon is further continued until the second Tuesday of May next following

At which said second Tuesday of May being the twelfth day of the same month, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety five, comes again into the General Court here as well the aforesaid Charles Mahoney by his Attorney aforesaid, as the said John Ashton by his Attorney aforesaid. But the Commissioners aforesaid to whom the Commission aforesaid was in form aforesaid directed have not yet made return thereof to the Court here. Thereupon further process of and upon the premisses aforesaid, between the parties aforesaid by consent of the said parties and their Attornies aforesaid, and by order of the Court here thereon, is further continued until the second Tuesday of October next following

At which said second Tuesday of October being the thirteenth day of the same month in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety five, comes again into the General Court here, as well the aforesaid Charles Mahoney by his Attorney aforesaid, as the said John Ashton by his Attorney aforesaid. but the Commissioners aforesaid to whom the Commission aforesaid was in form aforesaid directed, have not yet made their return thereof to the Court here. Thereupon further process of and upon the premisses aforesaid, between the parties   4. aforesaid by consent of the said parties and their Attornies aforesaid, and by Order of the Court here thereon is further continued until the second Tuesday of May next following

At which said second Tuesday of May being the tenth day of the same month in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety six comes again into the General Court here as well the aforesaid Charles Mahoney by Jonathan Roberts Wilmer his Attorney, as the said John Ashton by his Attorney aforesaid. And the aforesaid Charles Mahoney by his Attorney last aforesaid files in Court here the following Interrogatories and Depositions to wit

Charles Mahoney
vs
John Ashton

Petition for freedom

Petitioners Interrogatories

1. Do you know the parties or either of them?

2. Did you know Ann Joice who formerly lived with Henry Darnall at the Woodyard? and how long has she been dead?

3. Had Anne Joice any Children that you know or have heard of; if yea relate their names, with whom they lived and died, & from whom you had your information and where?

4. Do you any of the Grand children of Joice, if yea, with whom do they live, that you know or have heard, and from which of Joice's Children are they descended, that you know or have heard?

5. Do you know any of the great Grand Children of Joice, and how are they descended from her? relate your knowledge, and if from hearsay, from whom you heard it?

6. If you have any further knowledge, relate it fully and freely?

Jona Wilmer for Petr

Charles Mahoney
vs.
John Ashton.

Petition for freedom in the General Court

The Deposition of Mary Craufurd aged Eighty seven Years or thereabouts being first sworn in the above Suit on the Holy Evangells of Almighty God

Answered the several Questions as follow: to wit.

1st Question. Do you know the parties in the above Suit?

Answers. She does not.

2d Question. Did you know a Woman by the name of Ann Joyce who formerly belonged to Henry Darnall and who is said to have died at the Woodyard.

Answers. She does not.

3d Question. Do you know or have you heard that Francis Hall of Prince Georges County deceased or his father Benjamin Hall in his life time: at any time and when; did say; that Joyce before mentioned was free or entitled to be free, and for what reason relate any conversation that you may have heard from them or either of them or any other person on the Subject.

Answers. That she has never heard Benjamin Hall or Francis Hall say any thing on the Subject but that She has heard; her mother say there was a Woman by the name of Joyce came in with Lord Baltimore and that she her mother; dose say the said Ann Joyce or any of her Children would be free if they made any stir to obtain   5 their freedom that the said Joyce always lived in the family with Mr Darnall as she was informed and that Frank a Carpenter was Son to the said Joyce and Servant to Mr Darnall that this Deponants husband had hired the said Frank and two others of Mr Darnall to build him a dwelling house

4th Question. Do you know or have you heard and from whom that Joyce or Ann Joyce the Woman alluded to in the second Question came from England and when; and whether she ever resided in England and how long; and do you recollect ever to have heard who were passengers with the said Joyce at the time she came from England.

Answers. She knows nothing more than she has declared in her answer to the 3rd Question.

5th Question. Do you know or have you heard and from whom that the before mentioned Joyce was ever adjudged in Prince Georges County Court to serve fora a Term of Years for having bastard Children.

Answers. She does not know

6th Question. Do you know or have you heard and from whom how many Children the said Joyce had; what were their names and in whose possession did they respectively die. and when and did you or do you know any of the grand Children of said Joyce and to whom did they or do they belong respectively.

7. Question. Do you know or have you heard of any conversation which was at any time [torn page] respecting Charles right or the right of his Mother Grand Mother or great Grandmother or any of his Ancestors to freedom when and between whom, what was the Conversation relate it fully and freely

Answers. She does not know nor has hse heard of any Conversation.

8th Question. Do you know and from whom that one of the Children of Ann Joyce by the name of Ann Joyce Cross was bound to John Chaplaine in the year 1701 by Prince Georges County Court.

Answers. She does not know.

9th Question. Do you know and have you heard and from whom what became of Ann Joyce Cross mentioned in the preceeding Question and how and for what reason and on what Account she was bound out by Prince Georges County Court.

Answers. She does not know

10. Question. Have you any father knowledge concerning the right of the petition or of any of his Ancestors to freedom, if you have relate it fully and freely

Answers. She has not.

Sworn to before me the Subscriber one of the Associate Justices of Prince Georges County Court this 17th day of October 1792.

David Craufurd. Associate Justice for P.G. County Court

John Hickman
vs.
Richard Smith

Petition for freedom in the General Court.

John Wheat of Prince George's County aged Sixty two years & upwards being Sworn on the holy Evangely of Almighty God deposeth and saith, that he does not know the Petitioner: but   6. once knew Doctor Smith; that he knows Charles Mahoney who petitioned against John Ashton, but never knew him until since he petitioned; Being asked if he knew Anne Joyce who formerly belonged to Mr Darnall at the Woodyard, answers he did not; that he knew Tom Crane, John Wood and Frank Herbert; who he has been informed were descendants of Anne Joyce; that Tom Crane and John Wood when he knew them belonged to Capt. Williams who lived at the Woodyard, whose Widow married George Gordon; that Herbert and Wood appeared to be Mulattoes; but crane was of a white complexion; that he has frequently heard his Grandmother whose name was Sarah Perdue say that the said Crane, Wood and Herbert were entitled to their freedom, Being asked if he ever heard her give her reasons for saying so. Answers she said they were the offspring of a free woman, that his said Grandmother lived from the time she was first married within about two Miles of the Woodyard Mill until she lost two Husbands; and after their death, she lived with the Deponants Father about four miles from the Woodyard; and she often in this deponants presence conversed with this Deponants Father and others on the Subject of Crane and Wood and Herberts right to freedom and she always said when speaking of it that they were the offspring of a free woman; and he has heard her say that she had often been at the Woodyard and had seen them there; he has often heard his Father say that he understood they were intitled to freedom but whether he knew it, or had it from his Mother this Deponant knows not; and he further saith that he has heard his said Grandmother often say that she has acquainted at the Woodyard in the life time of old [torn page] Henry Darnall, Grandfather of the present Robert Darnall near the Woodyard

April 8th 1794. Sworn before Saml Hepburn

Charles Mahoney
a
John Ashton

Howard Duvall of P. G. County aged Sixty seven Years and upwards being Sworn on the holy Evangely of Almighty God deposeth and saith that he knows Charles the Petitioner and has known him ever since he was a Child, and he has known the Defendant ever since he lived at the White Marsh, the Deponant being a near Neighbour and living within a mile of said Ashton; that Charles is the Son of Eleanor a Mulatto Woman, who is now free, and lives as he has understood near the head of Severn, as a Servant to Col. Rezin Hammond. that he has known Eleanor Mahoney about fifty Years and ever since she was a Girl, and he knew Sue the Mother of Eleanor ever since he knew any body, and she lived at Enfield Chase when the Deponant first knew her and she then belonged to Charles Carroll Esquire now deceased; that Eleanor Mahoney was purchased by Robert Mahoney her husband who set her free; that the deponant never heard who was the aforesaid Sue's Mother, nor does he know any thing about Charles's right to freedom, that Patrick also is Son of Eleanor aforesaid, Robert, Thomas, James, Bernard, Daniel and Joseph are also Sons of said Eleanor

Sworn to in open Court the 23d Mary 1796. Jno Gwinn, Cl.

Anne Arundel County October 12th 1792. Came Richard Darnall before me the Subscriber and made Oath on the Holy Evangelist of Almighty God that he does   7 not know any of the Negroes belonging to John Ashton or any other of the parties, except two Negroe Men by the name of Sam and James belonging to Francis Worthy. The said Deponant further saith that he never knew nor heard of such a Woman as Ann Joyce untill the parties sued for their Freedom, nor did this Deponant know the Father of Francis Hall but was acquainted with the said Francis Hall but never heard him nor any other person mention the said Ann Joyce untill the parties sued for their Freedom, the said Deponant further saith that he never heard that the said Ann Joyce was compell'd to serve for a Term of Years for having Bastard Children nor did he ever hear how many Children the said Ann Joyce had nor does he know any of the Children or ever heard of any such people until the Parties sued or their Freedom as above mentioned. The said Deponant further says that he knows of no conversation relative to Charles in any respect whatever. The said Deponant further declares that he does not know nor ever heard of Anne Joyce Cross the daughter of Ann Joyce aforesaid nor of her being bound to John Chapman nor any thing else relative to the said Ann Joyce Cross neither to her being Bound out by Prince Georges County Court nor any one thing relative to her or to her Mother Ann Joyce.

Sworn to before Sam. Herrison.

Charles Mahoney
vs
John Ashton

Petition for freedom in the General Court.

Peter Knight of Prince Georges County aged about 37. Years being duly sworn on the holy Evangely of Almighty God deposeth and saith, "that he does not know either the Petitioner or Mr Ashton; that he does not know any thing of his right to freedom more than what he heard from Edward Clagett now deceased, that about eleven or twelve Years ago, the Deponent being at Edward Clagetts House the said Clagett was telling the Deponent that Jack Wood and Jack Crane two of Stephen Wests people had formerly killed Mr West's Overseer, that these two men were Mulatto Men and that they thought themselves above the level of Common Slaves" and he said the reason was that John Wood and Moll Crane were free born; and would have been free according to Law had it not been that an Indenture was burnt in St Marys County. Being asked if he mentioned what Indenture, answers he did not. Being asked if he mentioned who burnt it; answers to the best of his knowledge, he said one of the Darnalls burnt it this Deponent understood from said Clagett that the aforesaid Moll Crane and John Wood were Brother and Sister; that the Deponent did not know Moll Crane but he knew John Wood and he lived about half a Mile from the great house at the Woodyard and that said Wood lived comfortably in his house when this Deponent knew him, and he said Wood has been dead many Years; that Clagett said that he knew John Wood from the time he was a boy; and that he never knew any thing mean in his conduct: Being asked if he knew, or understood how Jack Wood and Jack Crane were related to John Wood and Moll Crane, answers he did not.

Sworn to this 12th day of May 1796 before Bullen.

Prince Gs County. 25th May 1792. This day came before the Subscriber a   8. Majestrate for the County aford Peter Harbard aged as he says about 77 Years who says he was born in the family of Henry Darnall who resided at the Wood Yard in the aforesaid County. That at the age of 22 he was purchased by George Gordon and continued the property of sd Gordon untill he came into the possession of Stephen West of whom he purchased his Freedom. Being askd the several Interrogatories agreeable to a paper handed me signed G Duvall for Petitioner replyed as follows.

To Query 1. Replyed that he know Charles Mahony having seen him about 10 years past.

To Query 2 & 3 & 4. Replyed that he well knew a dark Mulatto Woman by name Nanny Joyce; that she was his Grandmother and lived at the Wood Yard in the family of Henry Darnall. That he hath frequently heard her say that she came into Maryland with one of the former Proprietors of this State an Indented Servant for four years. That she was sold by sd Proprietor to Henry Darnall as a Cook and that when her term of Servitude expired Darnall burnt her Indentures, and sent her to a Benjn Hall'swhere she was kept in a Kitchen Celler for five or six Months.

To Query 5. He hath no knowledge of

To Query 6. Replyed for Sons & two Daughters, viz David Jones, Francis Harbard (father of Peter the Deponent) John Wood & Thomas Crane, Suzan Harbard & Polly Harbard. David Jones lived and dyed in the family of Henry Darnal, as also Francis Harbard, John Wood & Thomas Crane. That he knows several of Suzan Harbard & Polly Harbard. David Jones lived and dyed in the family of Henry Darnal, as also Francis Harbard, John Wood & Thomas Crane. That he knows several of Suzan Harbards Children, viz Charles who belonged and dyed the property of Wm Digges Father of Ignatius Digges late of this County. Sukey now living near Baltimore in the family of Charles Carroll of Carrolton. Polly who once lived in the family of Ignatius Digges.

To Query 7th Replyed that he hath frequently heard his Grandmother Ann Joyce say that if she had her Just right that she ought to be free and all her Children. He hath also heard his Uncles David Jones, John Wood, Thomas Crane and also his father Francis Harbard declare as much.

To Query 8. 9. 10. & 11. He hath no knowledge of

The foregoing being read to Peter Harbard he declared that he was ready to swear to the truth of it.

Rd Cramphin.

The foregoing taken at the request of Charles Mahoney who was present.

Charles Mahoney
vs
John Ashton

Petition for freedom in the General Court

The Deposition of Henry Davis of Prince George's County aged Sixty three Years being sworn on the holy Evangely of Almighty God touching his his knowledge in these Causes, saith that he does not know John Hickman; and that he has seen the Defendant Richard Smith only once, That he has seen Charles Mahoney once, and does not know the Defendant John Ashton. Being asked if he knew Anne Joyce who lived in the family of Col. Henry Darnall answers he did not; That he has understood from his late father Henry Davis who was a Joiner and Carpenter by trade, that he had worked at the Wood Yard where the said Darnall lived, and he has often heard his Father say that he knew a Negro Woman by the name of Joyce   9 that she was a jet black Woman and was born as he (his Father) was informed in Barbadoes, that some of the family to whom she belonged in Barbadoes, went to England, and that the then Lord Baltimore brought her into Maryland with him in the Character of a Cook or Waiting Maid but whether from England or Barbadoes does not know when she was a young Woman; that his Father died about seventeen Years ago and was in his ninetieth year when he died; that this conversation he has heard often; and he has heard his Father say that she the said Joyce had three or four Sons which were the strongest men he ever knew to come from one Woman; that he understood from his Father that all the said Sons were Mulattoes, and that their Father were White Men; that his Father was born in Prince George's County about two miles from Upper Marlborough: Being asked if he has heard his Father say that Lord Baltimore brought the said Joyce from England: Answers he cannot say, but he has often heard him say that Lord Baltimore got her from a family some of which removed from Barbadoes to England, that he never heard his Father say whether she was free or a Slave, but he understood from him that she was held as a Slave and her Children also. That one of her Children was named Thomas Crane and the other Sons had different Sirnames, taken as he understood from their supposed Fathers.

Sworn to this 9th Octr 1793 before the Subscriber Bullen

Charles Mahoney
vs.
John Ashton

Pet. for freedom in the General Court.

Eben Paramore of Prince George's County aged thirty eight years or thereabouts being duly Sworn on the Holy Evangely of Almighty God deposeth and saith, that he has known the Petitioner about three years, but does not know Mr Ashton; that he knows nothing of Charles's claim for freedom more than what he heard from Rachel Ratcliffe now deceased, that about Six years ago when the Deponent was a Single Man, he had his washing done at Mrs Ratcliffe's, and being there one Evening he saw a Mulatto Man, there, and after he was gone, he the Deponent asked Mrs Ratcliffe, who he belonged to, she answered he belonged to John Lane; the Deponent observed that he was neither White nor black, but more White than Black: upon which Rachel Ratcliffe told the deponent that she knew Ann Joice very well, and that she understood that she came into this Country with Lord Baltimore, and that she lived at the Wood yard, where she the said Rachel Ratcliffe lived close by it, and that she always understood that she was Free and that she never was held in bondage until she had a child named Molly who was a very pretty Girl, and that Molly had two Children named Nelly and Sally; that some time afterwards about Eighteen Months before Mrs Ratcliffe died, the Deponent having understood that some of the family of Anne Joice had petitioned for their freedom, he mentioned it to Mrs Ratcliffe and told her he imagined that she would be summoned, upon which she related again what is above mentioned, and said if she were sworn, that she would swear that she always understood that Anne Joice was not held as a Slave until after she had Molly and that Molly had two daughters named Nelly and Sally; and that Mrs Ratcliffe informed the Deponent that she was born and lived near the Wood Yard, and when this Deponent   10 knew her she lived in blue shirt Neck near Pig point: The Deponent further saith that he well knew Samuel Shekell late of Anne Arundel County deceased, and about two years ago he mentioned to the said Shekell what Mrs Ratcliffe had told him, and Shekell said it was true, and that he had always understood that Anne Joice came into this Country with Lord Baltimore, and that she was free and not held as as Slave until she had Molly and the Deponent says that he understood from Mr Shekell that one of the Darnalls at that time owned her but did not mention his Christian name. That Samuel Shekell lived near Mount Pleasant; Being asked if he understood from what Country Anne Joice came; Answers he did understand both from Rachel Ratcliffe and Samuel Shekell, that she came with Lord Baltimore from London

Sworn to this 12th day of May 1796 before Bullen.

But the Commissioners aforesaid to whom the Commission aforesaid was in form aforesaid directed have not made return thereof to the court here. Thereupon further process of and upon the premisses aforesaid; between the parties aforesaid by consent of the said parties and their Attornies aforesaid, and by order of the Court here thereon, is further continued until the second Tuesday of October next following.

At which said second Tuesday of October being the Eleventh day of the same month in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety six, comes again into the General Court here, as well the aforesaid Charles Mahoney by his Attorney last aforesaid, as the said John Ashton by William Cooke and Philip Barton Key his Attornies: And the said John Ashton by his Attornies aforesaid filed at Court here the following depositions to wit

Charles Mahoney
agt
John Ashton

Petition for freedom.

The Deposition of Ann Cooke aged about Seventy six Years being Sworn in the above Suit on the Holy Evangels of Almighty God, answered the several Questions as follows.

1st Question. Do you know the parties or either of them?

Answer, I have seen Mr Ashton at his Chappel, have no acquantance with him, never saw Charles Mahoney until the taking my Deposition before Mr Hepburn.

2d Questn Did you know Anne Joice who formerly lived with Henry Darnall at the Woodyard, and how long she has been dead?

Ansr She remembers being at her Grandfather Hills when she was a small Girl, when the Cooke came in and told her Grandmother, that Joice was come, her Grandmother

  11.

4th Questn Do you know any of the Grand Children of Joice, with whom do the live that you know or have heard, and from which of Joices's Children are they descended that you know or have heard?

Ansr I remember a Mulatto Woman by the Name of Sue the property of old Mrs Carroll at Annapolis that used to come to my Grand Father Hills to see Nelly and who called Nelly Sister, there was another Woman that old Mr Basil Warring had by the name of Polly that Nelly said was also her Sister and also a Man by the name of Johnny belonging to my Grandfather Hill brother to the said Nelly

5th Questn Did you know any of the great Grand Children of Joice, and how are they descended from her? relate your knowledge, and if from hearing from whom you had it?

Ansr I know that Polly had children, but I do not know any of them Nelly had none

6th Questn If you have any further knowledge, relate it, fully and freely.

Ansr I have none

Sworn before me the Subscriber one of the Justices of the Peace for Prince Georges County this 28th day of May 1796.

Robt Bowie.

But the Commissioners aforesaid to whom the Commission aforesaid was in form aforesaid directed have not made return thereof to the Court here, Thereupon further process of and upon the premisses aforesaid, between the parties aforesaid by consent of the said parties and their [torn page] aforesaid, and by order of the Court here thereon, is further continued until the second Tuesday of May next following

At which said second Tuesday of May being the ninth day of the same month in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety seven, comes again into the General Court here, as well the aforesaid Charles Mahoney by Jonathan Roberts Wilmer and John Johnson his Attornies, as the said John Ashton by his Attornies aforesaid. Whereupon as well the aforesaid Charles Mahoney as the said John Ashton by their Attornies aforesaid file in Court here the following Depositions, to wit. (vid page folio 33. the depositions of Anne Hurdle and Henry Davis marked No B and No C to come in before the following)

Charles Mahoney
vs.
John Ashton

Petition for freedom in the General Court.

Anne Hurdle, of Prince Georges County in the Seventy fourth Year of her Age being sworn; on the holy Evangely of Almighty God, deposeth and saith, that she never saw the petitioner untill lately, and she has no acquaintance with John Ashton the Defendant but has seen him; that she never knew or saw Anne Joyce from whom she understands the petitioner claims his freedom; that about fifty four years ago, or thereabouts Mary Hurdle the mother of the deponent's late husband, had been summoned as a Witness to Prince George's County Court for one Daniel Lee, a Mulatto who had petitioned for his freedom against John Wight; and went to Court and was sworn as she heard her mother in Law say when she returned from Court; that she understood from her that Daniel Lee was to be free when he was thirty one years of age, and that she said she knew where he was born; that when she returned, she said that it was the way of the great people that   12. they wanted this kind of Servants to serve longer than they ought to serve; that she said just so they served Ann Joyce's family, that by all accounts they are in confinement now, and they ought to have been free long ago. That the said Mary Hurdle was an old Woman at that time and has been dead about thirty Years; that the Deponent has always understood that the said Mary Hurdle was one hundred and two years of age when she died; That some of the Company asked her who Anne Joyce was and she said she came into this Country a Young Woman with Lord Baltimore, That the said Mary Hurdle then lived near Nottingham and this deponent and her husband lived with her, That she always lived in Prince Georges County as the deponent understood from her; that she came into this Country when about thirteen years old and served her time for her passage four years in the neighbourhood of Upper Marlborough as she had heard her say; and she has understood from Mary Hurdle that she came into this Country about the time that Lord Baltimore came in; That she recollects that she heard Mary Hurdle say that if Lord Baltimore had staid here, it would not have been so; That she has also heard the Tuckers and Lovejoys who were old people and who are now dead talk about it, but can't recollect what they said, now than they censured those who kept them; That she heard her Mother in Law speak of Mr Darnall and Mr Carroll as great folks but she does not remember that she ever heard her mother in Law say that Joice lived with Mr Darnall or Mr Carroll or with whom she lived. Did you ever mention the circumstances that you have above related to any person and to whom and when. She never did she said she knew [illegible] but what she heard from her Mother in Law. She further saith that she heard her Mother in Law say that Joice was a pretty Woman and that she was of an East India family That she understood that she came of a family that lived in the East India's but she never saw one that came from thence and does not know whether they are White or black nor did she ever hear her Mother in Law say whether Joice was White or black,

Had you never an conversation with your daughter Priscilla who lives in the Federal City about the claim of the Petitioners or the descendants of Joice, to freedom, if you had at what time was it, and what did you inform her.

She says she never had any conversation with her daughter on the subject on the best of her recollection, and never told her any thing about it unless her daughter over heard her lately when she was talking with the Petitioner Charles Mahony She does not recollect to have mentioned it to any person except lately to Mr Robert Brent who asked her if she had not given her deposition she said no and that she knew nothing that would do good or harm to any person, nothing but what she heard from her Mother in Law, Mr Brent desired her to tell him what she knew or had heard and she did accordingly relate to him what she had heard in substance the same that she has stated in this her deposition except what she has declared upon the cross examination of John T Mason which is all stated in his hand writing and except what she has stated to have heard from the Lovejoys and the Tuckers. That her Daughter may have casually heard her speak of the subject but she never did directly and purposely converse with her said Daughter about it.

  13.

To the best of her Memory she never had any conversation with her Daughter on the subject

This Deponent did not consider any thing she had heard her Mother say could operate one way or the other. The Tuckers she speaks of was Thomas Tucker and Mary his Wife who lived on Patuxent about ten Miles from Nottingham which was the nearest town they had to got and they have both been dead upwards of forty years and near fifty years. The Lovejoys she heard it from was Joseph Lovejoy and his Wife Ann they lived in the same Neighbourhood of Thomas Tucker and the Deponts Mother in Law, that they too have been dead upwards of forty years, That her Motehr in Law also lived in that neighbourhood. That the Lovejoy's Tuckers and her Mother in Law were old English people and used to meet and talk together on the subject of Joice, That they lived about half way between Piscattaway and Nottingham That her Mother in laws name before she was married was Mary Watson.

Sworn to before me this 28th May 1797. James Mackubin

This deposition to be read in Evidence in any of the petitions brought by persons claiming freedom as descendants of Anne Joice if the Witness dies or is unable to attend Court.

John Johnson for petr
John T Mason for Masters

(vid page 3 1/2 for this Deposition of Henry Davis marked No D to come in before the following)

Charles Mahoney
a
John Ashton

Petition for freedom in the General Court.

The Deposition of Nicholas Lowe Darnall aged 64 years being first duly sown on the holy Evangels of Almighty God deposeth and saith. That about four years ago he the Deponent received a Letter from Doctr Richard Smith informing him that his man John some of Ashton's people, and some of Frank Worthy's had been with Samuel Sheckells to enquire of him whether he knew Ann Joice and if she did not come into this Country with Lord Baltimore and live with Col Darnall, at the request of said Doctr Smith he the Deponent went Samuel Sheckell and enquired of him if the said Negroes had been with him and what knowledge he had of the said Ann Joice. That the said Samuel Sheckell then informed the Deponent the said Negroes had been with him to make the said enquiry but that he the said Sheckell had told them that he knew nothing of Ann Joice, and had never heard of her which he again repeated to the Deponent and added that he knew nothing of Lord Baltimore or Col. Darnall but had heard there were such men

Sworn to in open Court this 28th of May 1797. Jno Gwinn, Clk.

This deposition to be read in Evidence in all or any of the petitions brought by those claiming to be descended from Ann Joice, if the Witness dies or is unable to attend Court

John Johnson for Petr
John T. Mason for Defts

Mr Darnall further deposeth that on the 28th May 1797 Mr John Johnson the deponent Mrs Hurdle, Mr Talbut and and two of the petitioners being present; and all that were present Mr John Johnson asked Talbutt some questions relative to the subject upon which he was about to give his deposition; that he Mr Darnall touched Talbutt on the foot and took him into the passage and told him that he ought not to answer any question until the Attorney for the opposite party was also present. Admitted without being Sworn to. Jno Johnson for Petr John T Mason for Masters.

  14.

The Deposition of Nathaniel Talbot of Prince Georges County aged near Seventy Years being first duly Sworn on the holy Evangels of Almighty God deposeth and saith That he this Deponent hath known John Wheat Senior of Prince Georges County ever since the Deponent was a boy and hath always lived in his neighbourhood within a few Miles of him and for more than twenty years past within sight of his House being asked what is the general character of the said John Wheat saith it is very bad, and that he is not esteemed by his Neighbours as worthy of Credit and his Testimony where he lives would not be believed. Whether is John Wheat of such a character as to Swear to a falsehood thinks he would by what he has got to say

Sworn to this 28th May 1797. in open court. Jno Gwinn Cl

This deposition to be read in Evidence if the Witness dies or is unable to attend Court. the same to be read in all or any of the Cases of Petitions for freedom by persons claiming to be descended from Ann Joice.

John Johnson for Petr
John Thon Mason for Deft

But the Commissioners aforesaid to whom the Commission aforesaid was in form aforesaid directed have not made return thereof to the Court here, Thereupon further process of an upon the premisses aforesaid, between the parties aforesaid by consent of the said parties and their Attornies aforesaid, and by order of the Court here thereon, is further continued until the second Tuesday of October next following

At which said second Tuesday of October being the tenth day of the same month in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety seven, comes again into the General Court here, as well the aforesaid Charles Mahoney by Jonathan Roberts Wilmer, John Johnson and Richard Ridgely his Attornies, as the said John Ashton by William Cooke, Philip Barton Key, John Thomson Mason and Luther Martin his Attornies. Whereupon was well the aforesaid Charles Mahoney as the said John Ashton by their Attornies aforesaid file in Court here the following Depositions, to wit.

Charles Mahoney
vs
John Ashton

Petition for Freedom in the General Court.

The Deposition of John Wheat aged about Sixty two years being sworn on the Holy Evangels of Almighty God in the above Suit answered the several Questions as follows.

1st Quest. Being asked, if he knew the parties in the above Suit.

Answers. No he does not.

2d Quest. Being asked, if he knew a Woman by the name of Ann Joyce who formerly belonged to Henry Darnall, and who is said to have died at the Wood yard

Answers, He never did, or ever heard of the name until now

3d Quest. Being asked, If he had heard that Francis Hall of Prince Georges County deceased or his father Benjamin Hall in his life time; at any time; and when did say that Joyce before mentioned was free or entitled to be free and for what reason and to related any conversation that he may have heard from them or either of them or any other person upon the subject

Answers, No, he never did

  15.

4th Quest; Being asked, If he knew or had heard and from whom, that Joyce or Ann Joyce the Woman alluded to in the second question came from England and when and whether she ever resided in England and how long and if he recollected ever to have heard who were passengers with the said Joyce at the time she came from England?

Answers. No he never heard of Ann Joyce until this time.

5th Quest: Being asked, Do you know and have you heard and from whom that the before mentioned Joyce was ever adjudged in Prince Georges County Court to serve for a terms of years for having Bastard Children?

Answers. No, he never did.

6th Quest; Being asked, Do you know or have you heard and from whom how many Children the said Joyce had; what were their names and in whose possession did they respectively die and when and did you or do you know any of the Grand Children of said Joyce and to whom did they or do they belong?

Answers. No he never heard of such a Woman or any Children or Grand Children that she ever had.

7th Quest; Being asked, Do you know or have you heard of any conversation which has at any time passed respecting Charles's right or the right of his Mother, Grand Mother or Great Grand Mother or any of his Ancestors to freedom, when and between whom; what was the conversation, relate it fully and freely?

Answers, He never heard a Word respecting either or any of them; he remembered to have heard his Father say after times and likewise his Grand Mother Sarah Perdue say that John Wood, Thomas Crane and another they called Frank, who at that time live with Captain Williams at the Wood yard, were entitled to their Freedom and was supprised they never applied for it, but whether they were desendants from Ann Joyce or not he does not know.

8th Quest; Being asked, Do you know and from whom that one of the Children of Ann Joyce by the name of Ann Joyce Cross was bound to John Chaplan in the year 1701 by Prince Georges County Court,

Answers. No he knows nothing of it.

9th Quest; Being asked, Do you know and have you heard and from whom what became of Ann Joyce Cross mentioned in the proceeding question, and how and for what reason and on what Account she was bound out by Prince Georges County Court.

Answers. No, he knows nothing about it.

10th Quest; Being asked, Have you any further knowledge concerning the right of the Petitioner or any of his Ancesterstors to freedom, if you have, relate it fully and freely

Answers, He knows nothing further.

Sworn to before me the Subscriber one of the Justices of the Peace for Prince Georges County this 23d day of October 1792. Sam Hepburn.

Question. Did yr Mother Rachel Ratlief the person alluded to in the Deposn of Eben Paramore respectg the Freedm of some Negs belongg to the Revd Mr Jno Ashton & others ever wash the Linen or do any kind of Work for the sd Paramore.

  16.

Answer: My Mother Rachel Ratlief never did wash for the sd Parramore nor did she ever do any kind of Wash to my certain knowledge for the sd Eben Paremore.

Question, Were yr Mother Ra Ratlief acquaintd or did she ever see the sd Eben Paramore,

Answer. Eben Paramore never see my Mothers Ra Ratlief who lived with me all my life time after my being a Woman grown.

Quesn Did any Person ever apply to yr Mother to Enquire whether she knew any thing respectg the Freedm of some Negs

Answer, Yes Ths Tillard & Rd Richardson did once apply to my mother, but she told them tht she knew nothg of the Freedom of any Negroes whatever or any tht was entitd to their Freedom, Mrs Andersons Negroe Woman Maria, did also apply to my mother Rachel Ratlief to enquire abt her Freedom, but my Mother told her she knew nothg of her freedom, if she was not entd to it, it was wht she did not know.

Qs What length of time do you immagine yr Mother lived with you & did she continue to live with you untill her Death?

Ansr Abt Sixteen or Seventeen Years & she lived with me until her Death.

Qs Did yr Mother Ra Ratlief Wash for herself to the time of her Death?

Ansr My Mother never washed for herself for fifteen or sixteen years before her death I did her Washing & every thing else for her.

Qs Why did you wash for yr mother such a considerae length of time?

Ansr Because she was not able to Wash or do any kind of Work whatever unless it was a little knottg but she never washd as above.

Quesn Then yr Mother Rachel Ratlief had no connexion with Eben Paramore nor was she in the least acquainted with him?

Ansr My Mother was not in the least to my knowledge acquainted with Eben Paramore nor had she any Connexion with him any respect.

Qs Do you Recollect whether the sd Eben Paramore ever Visittd or was he ever or any occasion at yr House with whom yr Mother lived to the time of her Death?

Ansr Eben Paramore was never at my House nor did I ever see him but one as he passed the main Road & was then told by some one tht it was the sd Eben Paramore

Qs Did yr Mother Rachel Ratlief ever live near the Wood Yard in Prince Georges County as asserted in the Deposn of the sd Eben Paramore?

Ansr My Mother never did live near the Wood Yard to my knowledge.

A. A County June 10th 1796. Sarah Ratlief aged abt Forty Years or thereabout came before me the Subscriber & made oath tht the Answers she has made to the difft Interogas are to the best of her knowledge Just & True. Thos Tongue.

Qs Did yr Mother Ra Ratlief the person alluded to in the Deposn of Eben Paramore respectg the Freedm of some Negs belongg to the Revd Mr Jno Ashton & others, ever Wash the Linen or do any kind of Wash for the sd Paramore?

Ansr My Mother never did Wash or do any kind of Work for Eben Paramore.

Qs Were yr Mother Racl Ratlief acquainted or did she ever see the sd Eben Paramore?

  17.

Ansr Eben Paramore never was at my Sister's Sarah Ratlief's with whom my mother lived tht I know of. I lived within two or three hundred yards of my said Sister & must have knew if the sd Paramore was ever there.

Qs What length of time do you immagine yr Mother Ra Ratlief lived in Blue shirt Neck?

Anr My Mother Rachel Ratlief lived in Blue Shirt Neck abt Forty Years.

Qs How long a time do you apprehend yr Mother was too Infirm & incapable of washing or doing any Laborious Work before her Death?

Ansr My Mother was too Infirm & incapable to do any kind of laborious work for fifteen or sixteen years I apprehd before she died,

Qs Do you know as you lived within two or three hundred yards of your Mother to the time of her Death whether the sd Eben Paramore ever visited or frequented the House of yr Sister Sarah Ratlief with whom yr Mother lived?

Ans The sd Eben Paramore never was at my Sister Sarah Ratlief's wth whom my Mother lived to my knowledge & I am convincd he never was at my sd Sisters,

Questn Pray wht Character does the sd Eben Paramore bear?

Ans I believe a Bad one.

Qs Why do you think he bears a bad Character?

Ans Because he once stole Shott from the Store of Jos Macceney & was detected by Benja Carr Store keeper to the said Jas Macceney who threatened the said Eben Paramore to have him whiped. I was prest at the time this Theft was commitd & see the sd Paramore picking up the Shott he had stolen a part of which dropd on the Floor as he attempted to conceal it in his Pockett.

A. A. County June 10: 1796. John Lambath aged abt Fifty five years came before me the Subscriber & made Oath that the Answers he has made to the difft Interrog are to the best of his knowledge in every respect Just & True. Thos Tongue.

Montgomery Cty Ss. May 24th 1792. Eleanor Carroll aged about 86. being duly sworn on the Holy Evangels, that she would truly answer to the annexed interrogatories, deposed in the manner following

1st Has known John Ashton for about twenty years.

2d Remembers there was a Joyce in the family of the Wood yard, then Mr. Henry Darnall's does not know where she died & understood that she was a Slave,

3d Does not remember that she ever heard that she was entitled to freedom.

4th Never heard that Joyce came from England; never heard that she lived in England at all

5. Never heard that she was adjudged by Prince Georges County Court to serve for a term of years

6. She does not know the number of her Children; but knows that a woman of the name of Joyce had some children, the names of some of them were Davey, Frank, & Tom; that she thinks that Frank died in the possession of her Father, Mr Henry Darnall, & Tom in the possession of Capn Williams, or Mrs Gordon, or Mr Stephen West; that she does not remember that she knows any of the Grand Children.

7. She does not remember to have heard any conversation respecting the right of Charles   18. Mahony to freedom or of any of this Ancestors,

8. She does not know John Hickman, or any thing concerning him,

10. She never heard that Anne Joyce Cross was bound by Prince Georges County Court to John Chapman.

11. She has no knowledge concerning the right of the Petitioner, or any of his Ancestors to freedom.

George French

The Deposition of Michael Lowe of Prince Georges County being fifty seven years of age and being first duly Sworn on the holy Evangels of Almighty God deposeth and saith, That he this Deponent is well acquainted with John Wheat Senior of Prince Georges County (whose Deposition this deponent hath been informed has been taken in the cause now depending in the General Court in which several Negroes claiming their descent from one Ann Joyce are Petitioners again John Ashton Defendant) and that he this Deponent hath known the said John Wheat Senior as long as he can well remember any thing and the Deponent being asked what was the general character of the said John Wheat Senior saith that he is generally reported and believed in the neighbourhood where he resides to bear a bad Character

Sworn before me the 1st day of July 1797. Sam Hepburn

John Hickman
against
Dr Richard Smith

Petition for freedom in the General Court.

Interrogatories

1. Do you know the petitioner, and the Defendant, or either and which of them?

2. Did you know Anne Joyce a Mulatto Woman, from whom the petitioner alleges he is descended, who formerly lived with Henry Darnall of Anne Arundel County?

3. Do you know, or have you heard & from whom, that the said Ann Joyce was a Servant for Years; and how was she treated in the Darnall family, was she considered as a Servant for Years or a Slave?

4. Do you know, or have you heard & from whom that th said Anne Joyce was adjudged to serve for a term of Years for having children in Mr Darnall's family; and have you heard & from whom that her Children or any of them were bound out to serve until 31 years of Age; and to whom were they bound, & was not some of them bound to John Chapman by Prince Georges' County Court?

5. When and where did the said Anne Joyce die, and how many Children had she and what were their names, and to whom do they belong?

6. Do you know Patrick Mahoney who lives with the Revd John Ashton, and Charles Mahoney, who lives with Mr Ashton (alleged to be descended from the said Joyce;) and who have petitioned for their freedom?

7. Did you know Sue the daughter of Anne Joyce, and did you know Mary the daughter of Sue; Mary died the property of Basil Waring, and Sue the property of Ignatius Digges deceased?

8. Did you know Molly, one of the daughters of Anne Joyce, and Kitty or Killy another daughter, or either and which of them; and did you know Sarah who died   19. in possession of Henry Darnall about 18 months ago, and who was daughter of Sue who was daughter of Anne Joyce?

9. Do you know Will the Son of Sarah mentioned in the preceeding interrogatory? the property of Richard Darnall?

10. Did you know, or have you heard of, Anne Joyce Cross bound to John Chapman in the Year 1701. and was she the reputed daughter of the aforesaid Anne Joyce?

11. Have you any further knowledge of this Subject, that will tend to the benefit of the petitioner; if yea, relate it fully and freely?

The Revd Mr Digges aged about 81 years being first sworn on the Holy Evangels of Almighty God deposeth and saith to the

1st Interrogatory. Answers. he knows the Defendant, but not the petitioner.

2nd Intery Answers. No.

3rd Inty Answers. He knows nothing about it; he has heard of the name of Joyce, has some notion that he has heard, that a Woman of the name of Joyce lived with Mr Hall the father of the late Frank Hall.

4. Inty Answers. he knows nothing about it.

5. Inty Answers. he knows nothing at all about it.

6. Inty Answers. he knows nothing about them.

7th Inty Answers. He knew one Sue but does not know that she was the daughter of Joyce, it is said that Ssue died the property of Mr Ignatius Digges.

8th Inty Answers. He knows nothing abou tthem.

9. Inty Ansrs No.

10. Inty Ansrs knows nothing at all about them

11. Inty Ansr Nothing.

Sworn to this 14 April 1792. before me one of the Justices of the Peace for Prince G. County. John Smith Brookes

Thomas Digges

The Deposition of Mr Henry Hill aged about 84 years being first Sworn on the Holy Evangels of Almighty God deposeth and saith to the

1st Inty Answers, He knows Doctr Smith very well, but does not know the petitr

2. Inty Answers, he knew nothing of a Woman by the name of Ann Joyce living with Mr Darnall, but he knew of a Woman by the name of Joyce that lived at the Woodyard, the property of Henry Darnall and after him to his Son Henry, but she was a black Negro.

3rd Inty Ansr he allways understood the Joyce he knew was a Slave, and treated as such.

4. Inty Ansrs Never that he heard of, and the Children of the Joyce that he knew were allways considered as Slaves and very good ones.

5th Inty Ansrs the Joyce he knew, he beleaves died at the Wood yard, the property of Mr Darnall.

  20.

6. Inty Ansrs he does not know of any of that name, that lived with Mr Ashton.

7. Inty Ansrs he knew one Sue who died at Mr Digges and who he beleaves was the Daughter of the Joyce he knew, does not know Mary the daughter of Sue.

8. Inty Ansrs he did not know nothing of this Inty.

9. Inty Ansrs No.

10. Inty Ansrs No, he never heard of an Ann Joyce till lately.

11. Inty Ansrs he knows nothing more about it.

Being ask'd if he ever understood that the Joyce he knew was ever in England,

Answers he never did.

Henry Hill

Sworn to before me, one of the Justices of the Peace for Prince Georges County this 14 April 1792. John Smith Brookes.

Prince Georges County, to wit;

Personally appeared before me the Subscriber one of the Justices of the Peace for the County aforesaid, Samuel Hepburn Esqr also one of the Justices of the Peace for the same, and made Oath on the Holy Evangels of Almighty God, that Mrs Ann Cook, of the same County, who on the Seventeenth day of October 1792, deposed before this deponent, in a suit depending in the General Court between Charles Mahoney Plaintiff and John Ashton Defendant was to the best of this Deponants belief and Judgment of sound mind and perfect memory, at the time when the deposition as aforesaid was taken. Sworn this 27th June 1797.

Before Robt Bowie

Prince Georges County, to wit. Personally appeared before me the Subscriber one of the Justices of the Peace for the County aforesaid, Robert Bowie Esqr also one of the Justices of the Peace for the County aforesaid and made Oath on the Holy Evangels of Almighty God that Mrs Ann Cooke of the same County who on the Twenty Eighth day of May 1796, deposed before me this Deponent in a suit depending in the General Court between Charles Mahony Plaintiff and John Ashton Defendant was to the best of this Deponant's beleif and Judgment of sound mind and perfect memory, at the time when the deposition as aforesaid was taken.

Sworn this 27th June 1797. Before, Saml Hepburn.

The Deposition of Sarah Ratcliff aged about forty one years or thereabouts being first duly Sworn on the Holy Evangels of Almighty God deposeth and saith.

That she this Deponent is the Daughter of Rachel Ratcliff, the person mentioned by that name in the deposition of Eben Paramore taken and filed in a cause in which Charles Mahoney hath petitioned for his freedom against John Ashton. Being asked if she the Deponent knows the said Eben Paramore? Answers she has seen him but once that she recollects and then he was passing on the public Road and this Deponent was then told his Name. Being asked if the said Rachel Ratcliff ever washed the Linnen or did any other Work for the said Paramore? Answers that her Mother Rachel Ratcliff never did Wash or do any kind of Work for the said Eben Paramore; that she   21. this Deponent is confident her Mother never did see the said Paramore, or ever had any acquaintance with him. The said Deponent further saith that her said Mother lived with the Deponent since she has been grown a Woman and until her said Mothers Death, That her said mother was old and very infirm and for fifteen or sixteen years, before her Death was incapable of doing any Work except knitting. That the Deponent used to Wash and do the other necessary Work for her Mother who never was from the House of the Deponent for many years before her Death and the said Paramore was never at the Deponents House to her knowledge or belief. Being asked if her Mother ever lived near the Woodyard in Prince Georges County? Answers that her mother never did live near the Woodyard to the knowledge information or belief of her the said Deponent;

Being asked if any person and whom ever applied to her Mother to enquire of her knowledge respecting the freedom of any and what Negroes? Answers that Thomas Tillard and Richard Richardson did once apply to her Mother but she told them she knew nothing of the freedom of any Negroes whatever, or of any that were intituled to their freedom. That Mrs Anderson's Negro Woman Maria did also apply to her Mother the said Rachel Ratcliff to enquire about her Title to freedom but her mother told Maria she knew nothing about it and if she was intituled to freedom it was what she did not know. Sworn before Thos Tongue July 21st 1797.

This deposition, if the deponant is unable to attend Court, is admitted to be read in Evidence in the petition's for freedom, depending in the General Court, where the petitioners claim their freedom as being descended from Anne Joyce.

Jno Johnson for petitioners
John T Mason for Defts.

Charles Mahoney
a
John Ashton

Petition for freedom in the General Court.

The Deposition of John Lambeth aged about fifty five years being first duly Sworn on the Holy Evangels of Almighty God deposeth and saith. That he the Deponent is the Son of Rachel Ratcliff deceased, That he the Deponent knows Eben Paramore Being asked if his Mother ever washed or did any other work for the said Paramore. Answers he is quite certain she never did and that she never saw the said Paramore or hand any acquaintance with him. This Deponent further saith that his Mother lived with his Sister Sarah Ratcliff for many years before his said Mothers Death and that for fifteen or sixteen years before she died she was incapable of Washing or doing her own work whichwas done by the Deponents Sister Sarah Ratcliff. the Deponent further saith that he has never heard of the said Paramore's being at the house of the said Sarah and is very sure he never was there as the Deponent lives within two or three hundred yards of his Sisters House and should probably have heard of it if the fact had been so. The Deponent further saith his Mother lived in blue Shirt neck near Pigg point about forty years. Being asked what was the general Character of the said Eben Paramore in the Neighbourhood where the deponent lives? Answers that it is a very bad one. Sworn before Thos Tongue. July 21st 1797.

  22.

This deposition if the Deponent is unable to attend Court, is admitted to be read in Evidence in the petitions for freedom depending in the General Court; where the petitioners claim their freedom as being descended from Ann Joyce

Jno Johnson for petitioners
John T Mason for Defts

Charles Mahoney
agt
John Ashton

The Deposition of James Mullikin of Prince Georges County aged about fifty five years, who being Sworn deposeth and saith, that he is acquainted with John Wheat, a Witness whose Deposition this Deponent hath been informed, hath been taken in the above Cause. that his Acquaintance with Wheat is of near thirty Years standing he having married this Deponents Sister That so far as his knowledge and belief extends he is of Opinion that the said Wheat is entitled to Credit, and that he never heard any thing to the prejudice of his Character, as a man of Veracity, 'till since he hath been summoned as a Witness in this Cause, and he hath lately been informed, that his the said Wheats Character hath been impeached by the Testimony of a certain Nathaniel Talbott. That this Deponent hath not seen the said Wheat but two or three times within these Seven or Eight Years past. This Deponent also saith, that he is of opinion from his knowledge of Wheat, that he would not take a false Oath; This Deponent further saith, that he resides about fifteen miles from Wheat, and did not frequent his House very often

Sworn to in open Court this 27 Octo 1797. Jno Gwinn, Clk

This deposition to be read in Evidence
Jno Johnson for Petr
W. Cooke p. Defdt

The deposition of John Clagett of Edward taken by consent to be read in Evidence in the sundry petitions now depending in the General Court brought by persons claiming to be descended from Joice formerly in the possession of Col: Henry Darnall for freedom.

The Deponent being 64 years of age the 28th of August last past old style and being duly Sworn deposeth and saith that Edward Clagett his father who lived in Prince Georges died about the year 1788 as well as he remembers. That he this Deponent saith that he knew John Wood and Jack Crane who lived at the Woodyard as he understood and was present in Court when they received Sentence of Death for killing their Overseer as it was said. That this Deponent was married when this event took place and that he was in his twenty fourth year when he was married, but when they were hanged he cannot now precisely ascertain. That after this event took place he has frequently at times heard his father Edward Clagett speak of John Wood and Jack Crane but never to the best of his knowledge heard him say or intimate that they the said Wood and Crane or either of them were born free or descended of a White Woman or in any manner entitled to freedom. That he this Deponent never to the best of his knowledge heard his said father say one word about the Indenture or the burning of the Indenture mentioned in the Deposition of Peter Knight in these cases taken. That he never heard his said father to the best of his knowledge speak of a person by the name of Moll Crane, That he this Deponent never heard of a Woman by that name that he recollects until   23. the otehr day he heard of such a person from one of the Petitioners, John Hickman, That this Deponents father lived and died between Upper Marlbrough and the Woodyard and some where about two or three miles from Marlbrough. That this Deponent lived with his father until he this Deponent was married except some few years that he was at School that he then moved away and lived near Queen Ann until the year 1783, when he moved into Ann Arundel. That this Deponent never knew any other Edward Clagett but his Father, except a Nephew of his said Father who died many years ago quite a young man. That this Deponent was frequently at his Father's house after he this Deponent was married. That this Deponent never knew Peter Knight now does he know that he ever saw him

Sworn to before me 24 Octo 1797. John Randall

And as well the aforesaid Charles Mahoney as the said John Ashton by their Attornies aforesaid file in Court here, the following Admission, to wit.

It is admitted that William Diggs' Sue a Mullatto Woman, David a Carpenter, Frank Herbert, Jack Wood and Tom Crane all four Mullatto Men were the Children of Joice who died at the Woodyard and who together with their Children above named were in the possession of Henry Darnall of Ann Arundel County. That the above named Sue was the Mother of Warrens Polly, Hills Nelly and Carrolls Sue. That Carroll's Sue was the Mother of Nelly who was the mother of Charles and Patrick Mahoney the petitioners

Jno Johnson for Petr
John T Mason, for Deft

And the said John Ashton by Luther Martin his Attorney comes and defends the force and injury when &c and says that the said Charles Mahoney is the proper Slave and him the said John Ashton without that that the said Charles is a free man and of free Condition and this he is ready to verify wherefore he prays Judgment if the said Charles his Action aforesaid to have or maintain ought &c

And the said Charles Mahoney by John Johnson his Attorney says that he by any thing by the said John Ashton in his plea above pleaded from having his Action aforesaid against him ought not to be precluded because he says that he the said Charles is a free man and of free condition and this he prays may be enquired of by the Country and the said John Ashton in like manner and so forth. Therefore let a Jury thereon appear before the Judges of the Court here immediately, by whom and so forth and who neither and so forth to recognize and so forth, because as well and so forth. Thereupon the Honorable Gabriel Duvall one of the Judges of the Court here withdraws from the Bench having been former council for the aforesaid Charles Mahoney the petition. And the Jurors of the Jury whereof mention is above made, being called come that is to say, Thomas Hodgkin, Thomas Barber William D Taylor, James Lawrence, John Partridge, Henry McPherson, Charles Baker, John Love, Samuel Coats, Joseph Harwood, Jacob Bayer and Thomas Blackiston; Whereupon certain of them that is to say John Partridge, Charles Baker, John Love and Samuel Coats are sworn upon the Jury; and because the rest of the said Jurors so appearing being, according to the Act of Assembly in such case provided,   24. Challenged by the parties, that is to say, the said Thomas Hodgkin, Thomas Barber, William D Taylor, James Lawrence, Henry McPherson and Thomas Blackiston on the part of the petitioner, and the said Joseph Harwood and Jacob Bayer on the part of the Defendant, other Jurors being called come, that is to say, Joseph Howard, Stephen Jones, Richard Key Watts, William Shaw, George Bradford, Edward Burgess Junior, John Trueman, and Solomon Sparrow whereupon certain of them, that is to say; Joseph Howard, Stephen Jones, George Bradford and Edward Burgess Junior are sworn upon the Jury; and because the rest of the said Jurors so appearing being, according to the Act of Assembly in such case provided, challenged by the parties that is to say; the said Solomon Sparrow, George Digges and William Hamilton on the part of the Petitioner and the said Richard Key Watts, William Shaw and John Trueman, Matthew Ball, and John Brice on the part of the Defendant other Jurors being called come that is to say George Digges, William Hamilton, Matthew Ball and John Brice and because the said Jurors so appearing being in like manner challenged by the parties that is to the said George Digges and William Hamilton on the part of the petitioner and the said Matthew Ball and John Brice on the part of the Defendant other Juror being called come, that is to say, John Welch; Whereupon the said John Welch is sworn upon the Jury; and because of sufficient number of Jurors not being present to complete the said panel; therefore others of the by standers by the Sheriff of the County of Anne Arundel are summoned, who being called come, certain of them came that is to say; Robert Duvall, Nicholas Brewer, and Clement Richards Whereupon one of them that is to say, the said Nicholas Brewer is sworn upon the Jury; and because the rest of the said Jurors so appearing being, according to the Act of Assembly in such case provided, challenged by the parties that is to say the said Robert Duvall and Clement Richards on the part of the said Defendant, other Jurors of the by standers so summoned by the Sheriff aforesaid being called come, that is to say, William Alexander and Philemon Brown; and because the said Jurors so appearing being according to the Act of Assembly in such case provided, challenged by the parties, that is to say the said William Alexander on the part of the Defendant and the said Philemon Brown on the part of the Petitioner, other Jurors of the by standers so summoned by the Sheriff aforesaid being called come, that is to say; Ezekiel Gott and Richard Dorsey; Whereupon one of them that is to say, the said Richard Dorsey is sworn upon that Jury; and because the other Juror so appearing being, challenged according to the Act of Assembly aforesaid on the part of the Petitioner, mother Juror of the by standers see summoned by the Sheriff aforesaid being called comes that is to say: John Munroe Whereupon it being objected on the part of the Defendant to the said John Munroe being Sworn on the Jury alleging that he does not stand indifferent between the parties to this issue. thereupon the said John Partridge and Charles Baker the two first of the Jurors herein before impannelled are sworn to try whether the said John Munroe stands indifferent between the parties to this Issue, who having retired from the bar of the Court here, afterwards return and on their Oath do say that the said John Munroe does stand indifferent between the parties to this issue; and because the said John Munroe being challenged according to the Act of Assembly aforesaid on the part of the Defendant. another Juror of the by standers so summoned by the Sheriff aforesaid being called comes that is to say, Richard Mackubin; Whereupon the said Richard Mackubin is sworn upon that Jury which said Nicholas Brewer, Richard Dorsey and Richard   25. Mackubin so summoned by the Sheriff aforesaid from among the by standers elected at the request of the parties and by command of the Court here are added to the Panel, whose names to the panel aforesaid are annexed according to the form of the Statute in such case made and provided and the Jurors so added together with the other Jurors aforesaid before impanelled being elected, tried, and sworn to say, the truth in the premises above contained, do on their Oath say, that the Petitioner Charles Mahoney is the Son of Nelly who was the Daughter of Mr Carrolls Sue; who was the daughter of Mr Digges's Sue, who was the Daughter of a Black Woman named Joyce, formerly held and claimed by Colonel Henry Darnall; That the said Henry Darnall departed this Life in the year seventeen hundred and eleven; and that the said Joyce from whom the petitioner is descended was for many years held and claimed by the said Henry Darnall as his Slave and died in his possession or in the possession of his Representatives at the Woodyard in Prince Georges County; but at what precise period she departed this life is to the Jurors aforesaid unknown, The Jurors aforesaid further say that the Issue of the said Joyce and their descendants were and have been always held and claimed as Slaves by the said Henry Darnall and those claiming under him, and they do not find that either the said Joyce in her life time or any of her Children ever claimed the right of freedom, And the Jurors aforesaid further say that the said Joyce came into this Country with Charles Lord Baltimore son of Cecelius Lord Baltimore from England between the year Sixteen hundred and seventy six and the fifteenth of February sixteen hundred and seventy nine; and if upon the whole matter aforesaid the Court shall be of opinion that the Petitioner is entitled to Freedom then the Jurors aforesaid find the Issue in this Cause for the petitioner; but if the Court upon the matter aforesaid shall be of opinion that the Petitioner is not entitled to Freedom then the Jurors aforesaid find the Issue aforesaid for the Defendant

Memorandum, Before the Jurors aforesaid withdrew from the Bar of the Court here the Defendant by his Attorneies aforesaid filed in Court here the following Bill of Exception to wit.

Charles Mahony
vs.
John Ashton.

The Petitioner to support the Issue on his part offered to read the deposition of Henry Davis which deposition was agreed to read in Evidence except in the parts objected to. The Counsel for the Defendant objected to the reading of part of the said Davis's deposition, to wit, in these words. "And he (meaning the said Henry Davis) has heard his Uncle David Davis (who is deceased) say that it was the report of the neighbourhood that if she (meaning Joice) had justice done her she ought to have been free and this he has heard sundry times from his Uncle when talking the matter over" the same being incompetent and improper to be read to the Jury. But the Court over ruled the said objection and determined that the aforesaid part of the said deposition should be read to the Jury which was done accordingly. To which opinion of the Court the Defendant by his Counsel prayed leave to except and that this his Bill of Exceptions may be signed Sealed and enrolled pursuant to the   26. Statute in that case made and provided which is done accordingly

Jeremiah Townley Chase (seal)

But because the Court here are not advised to give their Judgment of and upon the premisses day therefore is given to the parties aforesaid, before the Court here until the second Tuesday of May next, to hear their Judgment of and upon the premisses, because the Court now here thereof are not yet advised &ca

At which said second Tuesday of May, being the eighth day of the same month, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety eight comes again into the General Court here, as well the aforesaid Charles Mahoney by his Attornies aforesaid, as the said John Ashton by his Attornies aforesaid. But because the Court here are not yet advised to give their Judgment of and upon the premisses day therefore is further given to the parties aforesaid, before the Court here, until the second Tuesday of October next, to hear their Judgment of and upon the premisses, because the Court now here thereof are not yet advised &ca

At which said second Tuesday of October, being the ninth day of the same month, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety eight, comes again with the General Court here, as well the aforesaid Charles Mahoney by his Attornies aforesaid, as the said John Ashton by his Attornies aforesaid: Whereupon all and singular the premises being by the Court here seen, heard and fully understood and mature deliberation thereupon had, the Court are of Opinion that the fact that Joyce was in England is not sufficiently and expressly found in the Special Verdict; and for as much as there was sufficient Evidence disclosed at the Trial by which the Jury might have found the fact expressly. Thereupon on motion of the aforesaid Charles Mahoney by the Attorneys aforesaid for a new Trial on the Issue aforesaid, which is by the Court here granted to him. Therefore let a Jury thereon appear before the Judges of our General Court here on the second Tuesday of May next by whom and so forth, and who neither and so forth, do recognize and so forth, because as well and so forth, the same day is given to the parties aforesaid then and there and so forth

And now here at this day, to wit, the said second second Tuesday of May being the fourteenth day of the same month in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety nine, comes again into the General Court here, as well the aforesaid Charles Mahoney by his Attornies aforesaid as the said John Ashton by his Attornies aforesaid. And the said John Ashton by his Attornies aforesaid files in Court here the following Assignment, to wit

May the viith M.D.C.Lxviii. 1668

Account of Servants imported into Maryland upon the Ship John and Christian of Bistol vizt

Richard Butler Alice Phillips Jerman Manhoone
Teag Mahony Grace Roberts Charles Brown
Margrett Couthland Mary Joyce Morris Welsh
Sheely Teag Katharine Watts Julian Welsh
  27
Abraham Saylee John Brown Junr Dermott Descole
Ledia Arundel William Powell Teag Calahone
Ellinor Anglen Charles Price Margaret Calahone
John Brown George Howell Ann Martin
Ruthro Morris Rowland Jones Mortimer O Bryan
Bridget Jones Jenken Price Derby Bryan
Ann Morris Bartholomew Owen John Kile
Richard Thomas Henry Gutheridge Julian Shoolevant
Rice Berren William Young Derby Shoolevant
Rice Griffith Dennis Holand Daniel Lyne
John Rees Daniel Holand James Shoolevant
Evan Phillips Desmond Malihone William Cunisby
John Brown Edmund Kennedy James Casey

Tho: Freeman proves 51 Rights & Assigns Charles Calvert Esqr vide Charles Calvert Esq asst to Jenifer in folio 547

The above said rights of Land due for the transportaion of the said persons here above mentioned were proved

Thomas Freeman to be originally due to the said Freeman and never yet made use of by him this done before me this tenth day of June M.D.C.Lxviii.

Charles Calvert

I Thomas Freeman doe assign all my intrest and rights of Land due for the transportation of the fifty one persons herein specified to the said Charles Calvert his heirs and assigns. Witness my hand this eleventh day of June one thousand six hundred sixty eight

Thomas Freeman

Witness Charles Rousby
Henry Warren

I hereby certify that the above is a true copy from Liber No 11 folio 378 of the Records of the Land Office of The State of Maryland.

(Seal of the Land Off W.S.)

In Testimony whereof I hereto set my hand and affix the Seal of Office this twelfth day of February seventeen hundred and ninety eight.

Jno Callahan Reg. Ld Off. W. S.

And the Jurors of the Jury whereof mention is last above made being called, come, that is to say, Samuel Chew, John Howard, Theodore Hodgkin, Daniel McComas, Benjamin Murrow, William Johnson, Elisha Wheatley, Benjamin Richardson, Joshua Green, Daniel Hauer, Jonathan Hager and Nathan Brawner; Whereupon certain of them that is to say, William Johnson, John Howard, Benjamin Richardson, Daniel Hauer and Jonathan Hager are sworn upon that Jury; and because the rest of the said Jurors so appearing being, according to the Act of Assembly in such case provided, challenged by the parties, that is to say, the said Samuel Chew, Theodore Hodgkin, Elisha Wheatley, and Nathan Brawner on the part of the Petitioner, and the said Daniel McComas, Benjamin Murrow and Joshua Green on the part of the Defendant, other Jurors being called come, that is to say, William Coe, Patrick   28. Sim, James Neale, James Allston, Henry Waughop, Samuel Judson Coolidge and Nathan Hammond Whereupon certain of them, that is to say Samuel Judson Coolidge and Nathan Hammond are sworn upon the Jury; and because the rest of the said Jurors so appearing being, according to the Act of Assembly in such case provided, challenged by the parties, that is to say; the said William Coe on the part of the Defendant, and the said Patrick Sim, James Neale, James Allston and Henry Waughop on the part of the petitioner, other Jurors being called come, that is to say, Abraham Hoff, James Kendall, Nicholas Tice, Martin Kreps and Samuel Elliott. Whereupon certain of them, that is to say, Abraham Hoff, James Kendall, and Nicholas Tice are sworn upon the Jury; and because the rest of the said Jurors so appearing being, according to the Act of Assembly in such case provided, challenged that is to say, the said Martin Kreps, and Samuel Elliot on the part of the Defendant; other Jurors being called come, that is to say, John Perry and John Jacob Bugh, and because the said Jurors so appearing being, according to the Act of Assembly in such case provided; challenged by the parties, that is to say; the said John Perry on the part of the Petitioner, and the said John Jacob Bugh on the part of the Defendant, other Jurors being called come that is to say William Hamilton Smith and William Hilleary are sworn upon the Jury, who to speak, the truth in the premisses, upon their Oath, do say that the aforesaid Charles Mahoney is a free man and of free condition as he hath by his Replication aforesaid above alledged, being descended from a free Woman named Anne Joyce in manner and form as he the said Charles Mahoney in his said Petition to the Court here preferred as aforesaid hath also complained

Therefore it is adjudged by the Court here, that the aforesaid Charles Mahoney the petitioner aforesaid be hence freed and discharged of and from the service of the said Reverend John Ashton, and that he the aforesaid Charles Mahoney the petitioner aforesaid go thereof without day &ca It is also considered by the Court here that the aforesaid Charles Mahoney the Petitioner aforesaid recover against the said Reverend John Ashton the sum of one hundred and fifty nine Dollars and quantity of Eight thousand four nine hundred and forty one twenty nine pounds of Tobacco by the Court here unto him the aforesaid Charles Mahoney the petitioner aforesaid on his assent adjudged for his costs and charges by him about his prosecution of the Petitioner aforesaid in this behalf laid out and expended, and that he have thereof his Execution against the said reverend John Ashton &ca

Memorandum. The Honorable Gabriel Duvall Esquire withdrew from the Bench at and during the Trial of this Cause, and before the Jurors aforesaid withdrew from the Bar of the Court here, the parties aforesaid Plaintiff, and Defendant by their Attornies aforesaid filed in court here, the following Bill of Exceptions, to wit.

Charles Mahoney
vs.
John Ashton.

In the Tryal of this Cause the Plaintiff by his Counsel to support the Issue on his part produced and offered to read in Evidence to the Jury the deposition of Anne Hurdle taken by consent on the twenty eighth day of May seventeen hundred and ninety seven, but the Counsel for and on behalf of the Defendant objected to the following part being   29. read in Evidence to the Jury to wit, "that she said, Just so they served Ann Joyce's family, that by all Accounts they are in confinement now and they ought to have been free long ago." as containing the declaration of Opinions as to a right, and not a declaration as to any fact and therefore improper and inadmissible to go to the Jury. But the Court were of opinion the said part was admissible to be read in Evidence to the Jury, the same being general Reputation of the fact that Ann Joyce's family were free, to which opinion the Defendant by his Counsel excepts and prays the Court to sign and Seal this his Bill of Exception according to the form of the Statute and which is accordingly done this thirtieth day of May seventeen hundred and ninety nine.

Jeremiah Townley Chase (seal)
John Done (seal)

Charles Mahoney
vs.
John Ashton

Petition for Freedom

On the Trial of this Cause the Plaintiff in support of the Issue offered to read the deposition of Ann Hurdle taken the 28th May 1797, by consent; and the Defendant by his Councel objected to the reading of the following part of said deposition, to wit "that she has also heard the Tuckers and Lovejoys who were old people and who are now dead talk about it, but can't recollect what they said more than they censured those who kept them". and the Court were of Opinion the said part of said Deposition was not Evidence and would not permit it to be read in Evidence to the Jury; To which Opinion the Plaintiff by his Councel excepted and prayed the Court to sign and SEal this his Bill of Exceptions which is done this 30th May 1799.

Jeremiah Townley Chase (seal)
John Done (seal)

Charles Mahoney
vs.
John Ashton

Petition for freedom.

The Plaintiff in this Cause to support the issue on his part offered to read in evidence to the Jury the Special Verdict which had been found by the Jury which was Sworn to try the issue in this Cause at October Term 1797. and which had been heretofore set aside by the Court on account of the same being adjudged defective, the fact that Ann Joice was in England not being expressly found, to which the Defendant by his Counsel objected because the Plaintiff had the same testimony now to support his issue which was offered to the former Jury; but the Court was of opinion the same might be read in Evidence to the Jury, to which opinion the Defendant by his Counsel prayed leave to except and that his Bill of Exceptions may be by the Court signed and sealed according to the form of the Statute in such case provided which is accordingly done this 30th day of May seventeen hundred and ninety nine

Jeremiah Townley Chase (seal)
John Done (seal)

Mahoney
vs
Ashton

In the Trial of this Cause the petitioner by his Counsel prayed the following direction of the Court to the Jury "That if from the   30. Evidence the Jury are of opinion that the Woman Joyce from whom the Petitioner is descended was in England and came from thence, they must find a Verdict for the Plaintiff the petitioner of which opinion the Court was and so directed the Jury; to which opinion of the Court the Defendant prayed leave to except; and that the Court may Sign and Seal this Bill of Exceptions which is done according to the Statute in such case made and provided this third day of June 1799.

Jeremiah Townley Chase (seal)
John Done (seal)

Mahoney
vs.
Ashton

The Counsel for the Defendant prayed the direction of the Court to the Jury, "that if from the Evidence in this Cause they are of Opinion that a Woman called Joyce the Ancestor of the Petitioner was a negro Woman and carried with her owner claiming her as a Slave from the Island of Barbadoes to England, and afterwards brought into this Country by Lord Baltimore claiming her as a Slave between the Years 1678 and 1681, and that she during her Life was held used and treated as a Slave, and that her issue have been held as Slaves ever since, that then they must find a Verdict for the Defendant. But the Court refused to give the said Direction to the Jury, to which opinion of the Court the Defendant by his Council prayed leave to except according to the Statute in such case made and provided, and that they would sign and Seal this his Bill of Exceptions, which is accordingly done &c.

Jeremiah Townley Chase (seal)
John Done (seal)

And hereupon the said John Ashton by his Attornies aforesaid prays that he many [torn page] from the Judgment aforesaid of the Court here to the Judges of the High Court of Appeals; and to him the same is granted by the Court here on his complying with the directions of the Act of Assembly in such case made and provided. Whereupon the said John Ashton by his Attornies aforesaid exhibiteth to the Court here an Appeal Bond entered into by himself and two sureties, which by the Court here are approved of the tenor whereof, ensueth in the words and figures following, to wit.

Know all Men by these presents, that we John Ashton, Charles Wallace and John Muir are held and firmly bound unto Charles Mahoney in the Sum of Three hundred pounds Current Money of Maryland to be paid to the said Charles Mahoney his Executors and assigns to which payment well and truly to be made and done we bind ourselves our heirs Executors and Administrators jointly and severally firmly by these presents, Sealed with our Seals and dated this fourth day of June 1799.

Whereas the said Charles Mahoney having heretofore filed his Petition in the General Court for the Western Shore of the State of Maryland against the said John Ashton to recover his freedom, upon which said Petition the said Charles Mahoney in the said Court at May Term 1799. obtained Judgment for his Freedom and the Costs of the said Petition from which said Judgment the said John Ashton is about to prosecute an Appeal before the Court of Appeals Now the Condition of the above obligation is such that if the above bound John Ashton shall not pursue the directions of the Act of Assembly entitled "An Act for regulating Writs of Error and granting Appeals to   31. and from the Courts of Common Law within this Province" at the next Court of Appeals and prosecute the same with effect and also satisfy and pay to the said Charles Mahoney his Executors administrators or Assigns in case the said Judgment shall be affirmed as well all and singular the damages and costs adjudged by the General Court aforesaid as also all Costs and damages that shall be awarded by the Court of Appeals aforesaid then the said Bond to be and remain in full force and virtue otherwise of no effect

John Ashton (seal)
Cha. Wallace (seal)
Jno Muir (seal)

Signed Sealed and delivered in the presence of Mary Wallace

Thereupon it is Ordered by the Court here, that a Record of the Proceedings aforesaid between the parties aforesaid together with all things thereunto relating be transmitted to the State of Marylands High Court of Appeals; and they are transmitted accordingly

Test John Gwinn, CLk.

The State of Maryland Sct

I hereby Certify that the aforegoing is a true copy taken from the Record of Proceedings of the general Court of the Western Shore of the said State.

In Testimony whereof, to this Exemplification (the same being first duly stamped) I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the said General Court, this fifth day of June in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety nine: And in the Twenty third year of the Independence of the United States of America.

John Gwinn Clerk, General Court Western Shore State of Myld

 

Revd John Ashton
vs.
Charles Mahoney

Transcript.

Charles Calvert Governor in 1762.
Charles L. Bal.

180 sides
Exd

  32.

The following deposition of Ann Cooke marked No A to come in as marked in page 10.

Charles Mahony
vs.
John Ashton

Petition for Freedom in the General Court.

The Deposition of Ann Cooke aged about Seventy three Years being sworn in the above suit on the holy Evangels of Almighty God answered the several Questions as follows.

1st Quest Being asked if he knew the parties in the about above Suit?

Answers, She has see Mr Ashton and has been at his Chapel but has no acquaintance with im. She never saw Charles Mahony untill this day to know him.

2d Quest Being asked if she knew a Woman by the name of Ann Joyce who formerly belonged to Henry Darnall and who is said to have died at the Wood yard?

Answers, She remembers being at her Grandfather Hills when she was a small Girl when the Cook came in and told her Grand Mother that Joyce was come, her Grand Mother sent for her in and talked with her, she appeared to be an Elderly Mulatto Woman, she never heard that Joyce had any pretentions to freedom, nor did she know with whom she lived.

3d Quest Being asked, if she had heard that Francis Hall of Prince Georges County deceased or his father Benjamin Hall in his life time; at any time, and when, did say, that Joyce before mentioned was free or entitled to be free; and for what reason, and to relate any conversation that she may have heard from them, or either of them or any other person upon the Subject?

Answers, She never heard a syllable mentioned about it.

4th Quest Being asked, if she knew or had heard and from whom that Joyce, or Ann Joyce the Woman alluded to in the second question came from England and when and whether she ever resided in England and how long, and if she recollected ever to have heard who were passengers with the said Joyce at the time she came from England?

Answers. She never heard anything of it.

5th Quest Being asked, Do you know and have you heard and from whom that the before mentioned Joyce was ever adjudged in Prince Georges County Court to serve for a term years for having Bastard Children?

Answers. No she never did.

6th Quest Being asked. Do you know or have heard and from whom: how many children the said Joyce had; what were their Names and in whose possession did they respectively die, and when, and did you or do you know any of the Grand Children of said Joyce and to whom did they or do they belong respectively?

Answers, She has seen a Mulatto Man and Woman named Johnny and Nelly who lived with her Grandfather Hill, likewise a Woman named Polly that lived with Basil Waring also another Woman named Sue that belonged to old Mrs Carroll, that she has been informed within these Twelve months past were Grand Children of Joyce, also a Mulatto Woman named Sue that lived with William Digges which she has been told lately was the Daughter of Joyce.

7th Quest Being asked, Do you know or have you heard of any conversation which has   33 at any time passed respecting Charles's right or the right of his mother Grandmother or great Grand Mother or any of his Ancestors to freedom, when, and between whom; what was the conversation, relate it, fully and freely?

Answers, She has heard that some of Doctr Smith's negroes were trying to obtain their freedom; and she has heard in different companies that there were others doing the same.

8th Quest Being asked, Do you know and from whom that one of the Children of Anne Joyce by the name of Ann Joyce Cross was bound to John Chaplan in the year 1701 by prince Georges County Court?

Answers, She never heard a Word of it.

9th Quest Being asked, Do you know and have you heard and from whom what became of Ann Joyce Cross mentioned in the proceeding question and how and for what reason and on what account she was bound out by Prince Georges County Court?

Answers, She never heard there was such a person as Ann Joyce Cross untill this Summer she has heard her name mentioned.

10th Quest Being asked, Have you any further knowledge concerning the right of the Petitioner or any of his Ancestors to freedom if you have relate it fully and freely?

Answers, She knows nothing further.

Sworn before me the Subscriber one of the Justices of the Peace for Prince Georges County this 17th day of October 1792.

Saml Hepburn.

The Depositions of Ann Hurdle and Henry Davis marked No B. and No C. to be inserted as marked in folio 11.

No B.

Charles Mahoney
vs
John Ashton.

Petition for Freedom in the General Court.

Anne Hurdle of Prince Georges County in the Seventy fourth year of her Age being sworn, on the holy Evangely of Almighty God, deposeth and saith that she never saw the Petitioner, untill lately and she has no acquaintance with John Ashton the Defendant, but has seen him; that she never knew or saw Anne Joyce from whom she understands the petitioner claims his freedom, that about, fifty four years ago, or thereabouts Mary Hurdle the mother of the Deponent's late husband had been summoned as a Witness to Prince Georges County Court for one Daniel Lee a Mulatto who had petitioned for his freedom against John Wright and went to Court and was sworn as she heard her mother in Law say when she returned from Court; that she understood from her that Daniel Lee was to be free, when, he was thirty one Years of Age, and that she said she knew when he was born; that when she returned, she said that it was the way of the great people that they wanted this kind of Servants to serve longer than they ought to serve; that she said just so they served Anne Joyce's family, that by all Accounts they are in confinement now; and they ought to have been free long ago. That the said Mary Hurdle was an Old Woman at that time and has been dead about Thirty Years, that the Deponant has always understood that the said Mary Hurdle was one hundred and two years of age when   34. she died. That some of the company asked her who Anne Joyce was and she said she came into this Country a young woman with Lord Baltimore that the said Mary Hurdle then lived near Nottingham and this Deponent and her husband lived with her; That she always lived in Prince George's County as the Deponent understood from her; that she came into this country when about thirteen years old and served her time for her passage four years in the neighbourhood of Upper Marlbrough as she had heard her say; and she has understood from Mary Hurdle that she came into this Country about the time that Lord Baltimore came in; That she recollects nothing further.

Sworn before Bullen.

No C.

Montgomery County May 6th 1797. Henry Davis aged about Sixty seven years made oath before me one of the Justices for said County on the holy Evangels of Almighty God to the truth of his Answers made to the annexed Interrogatories which are as follows.

The first. he says, that he knows John Ashton by sight only, and that he has slightly know Charles Mahony about three years.

To the Second, he answers, That he never knew Joice.

To the Third, That he well remembers to have heard his Father say, that Joice a Girl about 17 or eighteen years of Age was born in Barbadoes taken from thence, to England and brought to Maryland by Mr Calvert (the then proprietor) that upon his returning to England he made a present of her to a Mr Darnall and that he has heard his fathers Brother (David Davis) say the report was that Joice if Justice was done, was intitled to her freedom.

To the fourth, That he has heard his Father say Joice and Sons and Daughters the names of the latter he doth not remember, the Sons, David, Frank, and Tom, and that there was another whose name he doth not recollect nor does he their Surnames, Toms excepted, which was Crane.

To the fifth, He says, that he doth not.

To the sixth, He answered as to the fifth.

To the seventh, He answers as in the third.

To the Eighth; That he hath not any knowledge now than he has stated.

Sworn before George French.

The following Deposition of Henry Davis marked No D. to be inserted as marked in folio 73.

John Hickman
vs.
Dr Richd Smith

Charles Mahoney
vs.
John Ashton

Petition for freedom in the General Court.

The Deposition of Henry Davis of Prince Georges County aged Sixty seven years, being sworn on the holy Evangelists of Almighty God touching his knowledge in these causes, saith that he does not know John Hickman and that he has seen the Defendant Richard Smith only once. That he has seen Charles Mahoney but had no acquaintance with him, that he has no acquaintance with Mr John Ashton; Being asked if he knew Ann Joyce   35. who lived in the family of Col. Henry Darnall? Answers he did not, that he has heard his Father say he was a Joiner by Trade and worked at the Wood yard where the said Darnall lived, and he has often heard him say, that he knew a woman by the name of Joyce, she was a black woman, and was born as his Father was informed in Barbadoes, that some of the family went to England and that the then Lord Baltimore brought her with him to Maryland in the Character of a Cook or Waiting Maid. She was called after she came to Maryland Lord Baltimore's Cook, she was a Young Woman when she came in as Deponants Father informed him; that his Father died about the year seventeen hundred and seventy six and was in his Ninetieth year when he died; that this conversation he has often heard his Father relate, and he has heard his Father say she had four Sons, one called Tom Crane, once called Frank, the other called David the name of the fourth he can't recollect; he cannot recollect the Sirnames of any but Crane, he understood they took their Sir names from their fathers, and had different Sir names. That his father was born in Prince Georges County about two Miles from Upper Marlbrough, and continued there until a few years before Deponants birth as he has frequently heard him say. This Deponant further says he never heard his Father say whther the said Joyce was a Slave or free, But he remembers she was carried from Barbadoes into England when very young and was brought to this Country when she was about seventeen years old. This Deponant further says, that he has frequently heard his Father say that the four Sons above mentioned were Mulattoes, and that they were the strongest men he ever knew to come from one Woman. This Deponant further saith that his Father told him he knew the four Sons of Joyce and he knew the Woman who was called Joyce and that he had worked sundry times at the Wood yard, and he has heard his Uncle David Davis say that it was the report of the Neighbourhood, that if she had Justice done her she ought to have been free, and this he has heard sundry times from his Uncle when talking the matter over, that his said Uncle has been dead many years. That he understood from his Father that he had heard Mr Darnall say that Joyce came in with Lord Baltimore and that she was about 17 or 18 years old when she came in and that she was left with Mr Darnall by Lord Baltimore when he returned to England.

That his Father told him he worked at the Woodyard when Mr Darnall was building. Being asked if he heard his Father say whether she Joyce was a Jet Black Woman? Answered, no, but he said she was a black woman.

Sworn before the Subscriber this 22d day of May 1797.
Allen Quynn

This deposition agreed to be read in Evidence
W. Cooke.
Jno Johnson.

The Revd John Ashton
against
Charles Mahoney

Transcript

Recorded in Liber B. W. No 10. folio 450&c

212 Sides