Ann Bell v. Gerard T. Greenfield. Jury Instructions


If the Jury believes that the petitioner being the slave of Gabriel Greenfield of Prince Geo Cty in the State of Maryland came to reside in the City of Washington & then to hire herself with the permission of her master in the year 1813 or 14 & continued then to reside until his death in the year 1815. That after wards in the distribution of the Estate of Annie the said Gabriel the petitioner was allowed to & became the slave of Annie Greenfield of the same County & was by her mistress permitted to reside & continued to reside in Washington City until the year 1824 when the said Annie died. & that the said Annie by her last will & testament bequeathed the petitioner to the Defendant in this case who allowed her to reside & that she did continue to reside in Washington City until the filing of her petition. & that the residence of the petitioner in Washington was continuous from the time she came here by allowance of said Gabriel till the filing of her petition in this cause. such residence of the petitioner in the City of Washington does not entitle the petitioner to her freedom under the will of the said Annie Greenfield.


But if the Jury believe from the evidence that the Defendant did not know that the Petitioner claimed to be free

Bell v. Greenfield


But if the Jury believe from the evidence that the petitioner came to the City of Washington in the year 1813 by permission of her master Gabriel Greenfield of the state of Maryland to hire herself for his benefit & continued from that time under a like permissum, of her subsequent owner, from the said Maria Anne Greenfield & of the Defendant residents of the State of Maryland & of the Defendant to reside in said City & hire herself for his benefit as aforesaid & that the facts of the said petitioner having claimed to be free & made contracts as a free woman were unknown to the Defendant or if such claims to freedom were known was denied by petitioner deft who and that he uniformly asserted his rights as owner of said petitioner & that the said Petitioner applied to the Defendant for permission to travel to the District of Columbia paid her wages to the Defendant or his agent during her said residence, acknowledged the Defendant to be her owner & asked him to set her free, then such want of knowledge on the part of the Defendant & such recognition of ownership on the part of the petitioner is found by the Jury are sufficient to report the presumption that Petitioner was never the circumstances from which the Jury may infer tending to rebut the presumption that the Petitioner was not manumitted

(given 18. Apr. 1840)


145 Trials

Bell v Greenfield