O Say Can You See

 

Index

Joseph Wallingsford Plff in Error
agst.
Sarah Ann Allen for herself & children

	Page
Style of Court	1
Parties	"
Petition for freedom	"
Jury Verdict & Judgment on Verdict	3
first Bill of Exceptions	4
Second Do Do	8
Third Do Do	9
Fourth Do Do	"
Fifth Do Do	10
Manumission	11
Wallingsford petition in Prince Georges Country	12
Clerks Certificate	20
Appeal Bond	21
Writ of Error	23
Citation	24

 

District of Columbia Sct.

At a Circuit Court of the District of Columbia begun and held in and for the County of Washington at the City of Washington on the fourth Monday of March being the twenty third day of the same Month in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred thirty five, and of the Independence of the United States the 59th.

Were Present

The Hon: William Cranch Chief Judge
Buckner Thruston
James S Morsell Assistant Judges

Alexander Hunter Marshall
William Brent clk

In the Record and proceedings of said Court among others are the following towit.

Sarah Ann Allen for herself & children
agst.
Joseph Wallingsford

Be it remembered that heretofore towit on the fourth day of August in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty four the said Sarah Ann Allen for herself and children by Francis S Key Esquire filed in Court here the following petition

To the Honorable the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia sitting for the County of Washington.

The petition of Sarah Ann Allen for herself and her three infant children namely Eliza Jane, Julia Maria & John Davy humbly sheweth That she and her children   2 are entitled to their freedom and unjustly held and claimed by a certain Joseph Wallingsford as his slaves. Wherefore they pray to be discharged &c. and that Subpoena may issue to the said Joseph to appear & answer hereto.

F. S. Key for Petrs.

Thereupon Subpoena issued as prayed for returnable to the fourth Monday of November next.

At which said fourth Monday of March in November in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty four being the day to which said Subpoena was returnable comes here into Court the said Sarah Allen for herself and children by her said attorney; and the said Joseph Wallingsford being called appears in Court here by William L. Brent Esquire his attorney and offers to defend the said suit when and where the said Court shall take the same into consideration and for plea he says that the said petitioners are not entitled to their freedom as is alleged, and of this he puts himself upon his Country, and the said petitioners in like manner &c. Therefore let a Jury thereon appear before the Court here on the fourth Monday of Novem March next by whom &c. and who neither &c. to recognize &c. because as well &c. the same day is given to the said parties then and there &c.

And now towit the said fourth Monday of March in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty five come again into Court here as well the Petitioners   3 aforesaid as the Defendants aforesaid by their Attornies aforesaid. Whereupon for trying the issue aforesaid between the parties aforesaid above joined to be tried by the Country it is ordered by the Court here that a Jury Thereon appear. And twelve persons being called come towit Noble Hurdle Bennet Sewall, Anthony Smith, John F Callan, Samuel Stettinius, William Hebb, Henry Bradley, Alfred N Dowson, William H. Eddes, Charles Lyons, Richard I. Morsell and Asariah Fuller who being duly elected empannelled and sworn to say the truth in the premises upon their Oaths do say that the said Petitioners are entitled to their freedom as they above alledge. Therefore it is considered by the Court here that the said Sarah Ann Allen Eliza Jane Allen, Julia Maria Allen and John Davy Allen the petitioners aforesaid be free and discharged of and from the service of the said Joseph Wallingsford and that the said Petitioners go thereof without day &c. it is further considered by the Court here that the said Sarah Ann Allen for herself & children the Petitioners aforesaid recover against the said Joseph Wallingsford the sum of Twenty one Dollars and three cents, for their Costs andsoforth, and that they have thereof their execution &c.

Test William Brent Clk

Mem: Before the Jurors aforesaid withdrew from the Bar of the Court   4. Court here the said Joseph Wallingsford by his said Attorney filed in Court here the following Bill of Exceptions towit

"On the trial of this cause the Petitioners to support the issue on their part offered in evidence a Deed of emancipation of the said Sarah Ann Allen by Rachael Wallingsford duly executed acknowledged and recorded a copy of which is hereto annexed and marked A. (copied in page 11.) to the admission of which deed in evidence the Defendant by his counsel objected, whereupon the Petitioners offered evidence to prove that the petitioner Sarah Ann is the person named in and intended to the emancipated by the said Deed, and that she was at the time of the execution of the said deed of emancipation residing with the said Rachael Wallingsford as her Servant and that the said Rachel was then and had been for eight or nine years residing in the City of Washington in the District of Columbia and acting in all respects as a feme sole, and was at times in circumstances of great poverty and distress; and that for all the time that the said Rachel resided in the said City previous to the said deed of emancipation the said Sarah Ann had been living with the said Rachel, or had been hired out by her as her slave and that the said Rachel had always received her wages when so hired, and applied the same to her own use, and had in all respects acted as the owner of the said Negro Sarah Ann.

  5

The Defendant then offered evidence to prove that the said Rachel Wallingsford was, at the time of the execution of the said Deed, his lawful wife, and that the said Negro Sarah Ann was at the same time his slave and property.

That the said Rachel had for more than Ten years before the date of the said Deed of Manumission without reasonable cause abandoned his bed and board (he then residing on his plantation in Prince Georges County in Maryland) and wandered about sometimes residing among her friends and neighbours in Maryland and some times living by herself in Washington City in the District of Columbia. That she took with her, the said Negro Sarah Ann who was suffered by the Defendant to live with the said Rachel as her Servant he not intending to deprive the said Rachel, during her life of the service of the said Negro.

That the Defendant repeatedly requested the said Rachel to return and live with him as his wife, which she refused to do. That in the year 1827 he took possession of the said Negro in the City of Washington aforesaid as his slave, whereupon the said Rachel procured a warrant against his and caused him to be thereupon arrested and improved imprisoned in the said City of Washington for kidnapping upon which occasion the said Raphael Rachel made Oath that the said Negro Sarah Ann was her slave. That he was discharged from that arrest upon habeas corpus, and agreed to leave the petitioner with his said wife Rachel if she would not harass him any more and would give up the 120 Dollars a year which had been allowed to her for her   6. separate maintenance pending her suit for alimony in a Court in Maryland; but that she never did give up the said allowance, and concealed the Petitioners. That after her death the Petitioners having been committed to prison in Washington County D.C. as runaways the Defendant obtained a writ of habeas corpus from the Chief Judge of the District of Columbia, who was about to cause them to be delivered up to the Defendant when they filed the present Petition for freedom and thereupon the said Chief Judge refused to order them to be delivered to the Defendant unless he would give security in the usual form by way of recognizance for their appearance in Court to prosecute their said Petition, which the Defendant was unwilling or unable to give and the Petitioners still remain in custody of the Marshal of this District.

Whereupon the Petitioners offered evidence to prove that the said Rachel left her said Husband and refused to live with him because he had an illicit connection with a women of ill fame whom he suffered to live on his plantation. That she filed her Petition in the County Court of Prince Georges County in Maryland for a separate maintenance upon that ground, and that the Court allowed her 120 Dollars a year pendente lite. That the said Rachel at the time of her intermarriage with the Defendant brought him property of the value of Nine hundred Dollars including the Mother of the Petitioner who was born in the Family after the Marriage and had always waited on her Mistress until she left her Husband, and continued with   7 her after she left him. That the Defendant had agreed to give to his said wife property to that amount, including the said Sarah Ann which she agreed to take, and did take and carry away upon her agreeing to acquit and discharge him from all further claim upon him for support which she did not do, but that she did not receive from him any thing afterwards. That part of the said property consisted of single bills to the amount of three hundred & fifty Dollars which the Defendant afterwards refused to pay. That she thereupon brought the aforesaid suit for a separate maintenance in the said County Court of Prince Georges County in Maryland which suit was pending at the time of her death in the Spring of 1834. And the Petitioners read in evidence to the Court and Jury without objection by the Defendant, the Petition of the said Joseph Wallingsford the Defendant to the said County Court of Prince Georges County sworn to by him on the 14th of April 1827 a copy of which is hereto annexed marked B. (copied in page 12.) And further offered evidence to prove that the said Petitioner Sarah Ann was at the date of the said Deed of emancipation healthy, sound in mind & body & capable by her labor to procure for herself and her children in the said Deed named sufficient food and raiment with other necessaries of life, and that the said children were then healthy and sound in mind and body. Upon consideration of all the matters so given in evidence by the parties as aforesaid. The Court permitted the aforesaid Deed of Manumission to be read in evidence   8 to the Jury by the Counsel for the Petitioners; expressly leaving it to the Jury to say or find from the evidence whether the title of the said Rachel to the said Negro Sarah Ann at the time of the execution of the said Deed was absolute or only for the life of the said Rachel; and the Court instructed the Jury that, that question was open for their consideration upon all the evidence in the cause.

To which admission of the said deed in evidence, and to the said instruction so given to the Jury the counsel for the Defendant excepts and this his bill of exceptions is signed, sealed and ordered to be enrolled

W. Cranch (seal)
B. Thruston (seal)

Second Exceptions.

Whereupon the Defendant by his counsel prayed the Court to instruct the Jury that if they should believe from the evidence aforesaid (Vizt. the evidence stated in the first bill of exceptions) that Mrs. Wallingsford held the Petitioners by virtue of an agreement made between her and her husband, without the intervention of a Trustee; that said agreement is null and void and could give no power to Mrs. Wallingsford to manumit the slaves held by virtue of such an agreement. Which instruction the Court refused to give. to which refusal the Defendant by his Counsel excepted, and this his bill of exceptions is signed sealed and ordered to be enrolled

W. Cranch (seal)
B. Thruston (seal)

  9

Third Exceptions

The Defendant by his Counsel then prayed the Court to instruct the Jury that if they should believe from the evidence aforesaid, that an agreement was entered into between Defendant & Rachel Wallingsford by which said Rachel was to have said Petitioners in lieu of being supported by him as his wife, yet if there was no covenant on the part of a Trustee, or some other one capable of contracting with said Husband that he should not be liable for the maintenance of said Rachel as his wife, the same is null. which instruction the Court refused to give, to which refusal the Defendant by his Counsel excepts and this his bill of exceptions is signed sealed and ordered to be enrolled.

W. Cranch (seal)
B. Thruston (seal)

Fourth Exceptions

The Defendant by his Counsel prayed the Court to instruct the Jury that if they should believe from the evidence aforesaid that an agreement existed between the Defendant and Mrs. Wallingsford, that he should transfer the Petitioners to her on condition that she should relinquish all claim to alimony against him, that then should the Jury believe from the said evidence, that she did not comply with this condition, and that she did prefer against him a subsequent claim for alimony, that then the said agreement cannot be enforced against the Defendant. Nor can he be deprived of any of his rights by virtue of said agreement which instruction the   10. Court refused to give; to which refusal the Defendant but his Counsel excepted, and this his bill of exceptions is signed, sealed & ordered to be enrolled.

W. Cranch (seal)
B. Thruston (seal)

Fifth Exceptions

The Defendant then prayed the Court to instruct the Jury that if they should believe from the evidence aforesaid that the Petitioners or any of them, at the time of the execution of the deed of manumission aforesaid were not able by their labor to procure for themselves sufficient food or raiment with other necessary requisites of life, then the said deed of manumission, as to them, or such of them was inoperative. Which instruction the Court gave; and also at the prayer of the Counsel for the Petitioners, further instructed the Jury, that if they should believe from the said evidence mentioned were of healthy constitutions and sound in mind and body, and that their Mother was capable by labour to procure to them sufficient food and raiment with other requisite necessities of life, and did maintain them, then such children are not under incapacity intended by the Maryland law. To which last mentioned instruction the Defendant by his counsel excepted and this his bill of exceptions is signed sealed & ordered to be enrolled.

W. Cranch (seal)
B. Thruston (seal)

True Copy
Test Wm Brent Clk

  11

Manumission marked A. referred to in page 4.

To all whom it may concern. Be it remembered that I Rachael Wallingsford of Washington County in the District of Columbia for divers good causes and considerations me thereunto moving as also for and in consideration of the sum of one hundred and fifty Dollars current money to me in hand paid, the receipt whereof I do hereby acknowledge, have released from slavery liberated manumitted and set free and by these presents do hereby release from slavery liberate manumit and set free my Negro woman named Sarah Ann Allen aged about Nineteen years and her two female children Eliza Jan aged three years and Julia Maria aged five months, and them the said Sarah Ann Allen, Eliza Jane and Julia Maria, I do declare to be henceforth free manumitted and discharged from all manner of servitude or service to me my heirs executors or administrators forever.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal this eighth day of September 1826.

Rachel Wallingsford (seal)
her x mark

signed sealed & delivered in the presence of
C. H. Wiltberger
Wm Hewitt

Washington County District of Columbia Sct. On this eighth day of September 1826 personally appears Rachael Wallingsford party to the within instrument of writing before me the subscriber a Justice of the Peace in and for said County and acknowledges   12 the same to be her act and deed for the purposes therein mentioned and the Negro woman and children within named to be henceforth manumitted and discharged from all services to her or to any person or persons claiming under her and to be free and manumitted according to law.

Acknowledged before
Wm Hewitt

Petition referred to in page 7 as marked B.

Rachael Wallingsford
vs
Joseph Wallingsford

The Petition of Joseph Wallingsford Humbly represents to the Honl. the Judges of the County Court of Prince Georges County that great injustice has been done him by the intolocutory order passed in this cause at the October Term of your honorable Court in 1825 in consequence of your Orator not having it in his power at that time to shew unto your honors the amount of his property and the extent to which he was able to pay for the separate maintenance and support of his wife. Your Orator will state to your honors that it will be utterly impossible for him to pay at the rate of $120. per annum for the support of his wife without selling property every year for   13 that purpose in as much as the whole nett product of his own labour and of all the property which he was in possession will not amount annually to near that sum, for he has only a small plantation of poor land and two old Negroes the one an old man upwards of 60 years old the other a woman upwards of 50, with a few horses and cattle and other small stock to assist him in his labour to procure a subsistence; after feeding and clothing himself and family that he has living with him, which he is bound by law and religion to support he is satisfied that the all the other proceeds of his labour, land and other property could upon an average, in the present times exceed $    Your Orator would further state that it is not true as alledged in the Petition of the said Complainant that he treated his said wife ill or drove her out of his house or home kept any other woman either white or black or yellow or of any other colour unlawfully or improperly in his house or family to the annoyance of his said wife but that his said wife became discontented and refused to live with him any longer and went off and left his bed and board without knowledge and entirely of her own will that after she had thus gone off he went to see her and told her that he wished her to come back and live with him and that if she would come back again and live with him nobody should interfere with her which she positively refused to do   14 saying that she would not to save his life. that at the time when his said wife went away she carried with her without his consent or knowledge a Negro Girl about 12 years old the property of your Orator, that afterwords finding his said wife was determined to live apart from him, at her own request and by her express agreement he agreed to give her a certain sum of money, in property and cash for her future separate support amounting as your Orator believes to $900. or thereabouts which was the amount which she alledged that she had brought with her by her marriage consisting of the aforesaid Negro Girl, $75 cash, a bed, a Horse five head of cattle, 200 weight of bacon & sundry other small articles of house hold and kitchen furniture, one single bill for $125 and one other for $200 amounting altogether to the aforesaid sum of $900. which she agreed to take as placing her in the same situation in which she was before the said marriage and thereupon to acquit and discharge your Orator from all further claim upon him for support, and your Orator avers that he did actually deliver all the aforesaid money notes and property to her in pursuance of said agreement and that she carried all away, your Orator further states that after the expiration of about two years as nearly as he can now recollect his said wife became dissatisfied with her   15 situation and returned to his house and for about three weeks would stay about two or three days at a time and go away and return and pass her time partly with your Orator and partly away after which she became offended because your Orator did not pay the aforesaid single bills, which you Orator delayed paying because he was informed and believed that she intended as soon as she should to get the money for those bills to bring a suit against him, she brought suit against your Orator in your honorable Court for a Separate Maintenance, the circumstances of which suit your Honors are already acquainted with as they appear upon record of your Honorable Court which you can refer to, that upon you Orator being brought into your Honorable Court by an attachment he was alarmed and in that situation agreed to give his wife the sum of $2000. including the property formerly given to her, that he might be forever rid of the necessity of supporting his said wife and being harassed by her, this however your Orator found would be to him what would amount to his utter ruin; whereupon advised with Counsel learned in the law who told him that what had been done in relation to the said suit could not be binding upon him in as much as his said wife was not bound thereby   16 and might still thereafter come upon him for a support if she should waste that property and again become indigent.

Whereupon he determined to appeal from the decree of your honors in said suit for maintenance and accordingly did so with the effect of the said decree having been reversed by the Court of Appeals, your Orator will further state that upon the said information having been given him he did forthwith come to the conclusion that his said wife should not live apart from him if he could help it, as he could not hesitate in the choice to submit to her complaints and discontent and whatever other annoyance he might be subjected to by the acerbity of her temper rather than submit to utter ruin as he had a numerous offspring and was old himself and getting to be infirm and approaching the age of helplessness and infirmity. That thereupon he went to his said wife and requested her to go home and live with him, promising to be as kind to her as possible and to protect and maintain her at home and urging the necessity of her going home as it was utterly out of his power to afford her a Separate Maintenance as it was with the utmost difficulty that he could support his Family at home and assuring her that she should not be interfered with by any body. That nevertheless his said wife positively   17 refused to go home with him, or to live with him on any terms. That thereupon he publickly advertised in a News Paper in the City of Washington the National Intelligencer, that his wife had left him and that he forbid all person from harbouring her, in the hope that she would thus be driven to the necessity of returning home to live with him, which she however still persisted in refusing to do. Your Orator further states that when he afterwards heard of the reversal of the said Decree of your honors and was informed by his Counsel that he was thereby restored to all his natural rights, he again called upon his said wife and requested her to come live with him promising her again protection and kindness which she still refused to do and on the contrary at the next Term of your Honl. Court thereafter filed another Petition in your Honl. Court praying for alimony your Orator should pay to his said wife $120. per annum quarterly during the pendencies of the said suit, your Orator will further state that he has almost reduced to ruin by the necessity of paying that annuity and that he can see no certain prospect of an end to that suit, that his said wife has still retained the said property which he gave to her by virtue of the said agreement and that the said Negro Girl has now become a woman and has two children all of whom with the Mother are worth $450. That for the purpose of enabling   18. himself to pay the said $120. he went about 4 or 5 weeks ago to the City of Washington where his said wife keeps the said Negroes and took them in his possession, as he was advised he had a right to do, and as he was directed by Judge Cranch, before whom he was obliged to go before he could get full possession of them and was about to bring them away when his said wife finding the Judgment of Judge Cranch, that he had a right to bring them away and use them as his own property, became greatly distressed & offended and agreed that if your Orator would suffer the said Negroes Mother and children to remain with her she would on that account agree to never claim of him any thing more in consequence of the said interlocutory order, and that she would discontinue her suit for alimony and that each party should retain what they had and be quit forever after, which was assented to by your Orator who left the said woman and children with her as agreed upon but so it is may it please your honors that since that time she has still persisted in claiming the said allowance of $120. per annum and ordered the sheriff to execute your Orator therefor she still refusing to comply with the said agreement; all of which are oppressive, unjust and contrary to equity and good conscience, wherefore your Orator prays your Honors to suspend the execution of the said interlocutory order   19 to compel his said wife to appear in this Honorable Court and answer this cross bill and petition and to do for your Orator what further equity he may be entitled to by the case which he should make out and as in duty bound he will ever pray &c.

H. Ashton for Petnr.

Maryland Prince Georges County towit

On this 14th day of April 1827 personally appears Joseph Wallingsford Party Petioner in the foregoing Petition before the Subscriber a Justice of the Peace in and for the County aforesaid and made Oath on the Holy Evangelly of Almighty God that the facts stated in the said Petition as of his own knowledge are true and that such as are stated as from the information of others he believes to be true

Sworn before Clement T. Hilleary

Maryland, Prince Georges County Sct.

I hereby certify that the aforegoing Petition is truly taken and copied from the original filed in my office.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the Seal of Prince Georges County Court this 8th day of January Anno Domini 1835.

Aquila Beale clk of P. G. County Court

  20

And whereas afterwards towit on the Eleventh day of June in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty five the said Joseph Wallingsford by his attorney aforesaid produced and filed in Court here the United States Writ for the correcting of Errors of and upon the Judgment aforesaid directed to the Judges of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia in the County of Washington; And in pursuance thereof and according to the form and effect of the law in such case made and provided, a Transcript of the Record of Proceedings of the Judgment aforesaid and all things thereunto relating with the Writ of Error aforesaid, and a Copy of the Appeal Bond hereto annexed are hereby transmitted to the said Supreme Court accordingly.

In testimony whereof I have hereto subscribed my name and affixed the Public Seal of the said Circuit Court for the County aforesaid this Seventh day of September 1835.

Wm Brent clk

  21

Know all men by these presents, that we Joseph Wallingsford, John Stevenson and James Johnson of Washington County District of Columbia are held and firmly unto Sarah Ann Allen in the just and full sum of Twenty four hundred Dollars current money, to be paid to the said Sarah Ann Allen her executors administrators or assigns; to which payment well and truly to be made and done, we bind ourselves and each of us our and each of our heirs, executors and administrators jointly and severally, firmly by these presents, sealed with our seals and dated this eleventh day of June in the year eighteen hundred and thirty five.

Whereas lately at a Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, setting for the County of Washington, in a suit depending in the said Circuit Court, wherein the said Sarah Allen for herself and children Eliza Jane, Julia Maria & John Davy, were Petitioners, and Joseph Wallingsford was Defendant, Judgment was rendered against the said Joseph Wallingsford, and he having obtained a writ of Error and filed a copy thereof in the Clerks Office of the said Circuit Court, to reverse the Judgment in the aforesaid suit, and a citation to the said Sarah Ann Allen herself & children citing her to be and appear at a Supreme Court of the United States to be held on the first Monday of August next.

Now the condition of the above obligation is such, that if the said   22 Joseph Wallingsford shall prosecute said writ to effect and answer all damages and costs if he fails to make good his plea, then the above obligation to be void else to remain in full force and virtue.

Joseph Wallingsford (seal)
John Stevenson (seal)
James Johnston (seal)

Signed Sealed & delivered in presence of
James Lynch

Approved W. Cranch

True Copy
Test Wm. Brent clk

  23

United States of America, sct.

The President of the United States to the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, sitting for the County of Washington, greeting:

Because in the Record and proceedings as also in the Rendition of the judgment of a plea which is in the said Circuit Court before you or some of you, between Sarah Ann Allen for herself & children, Eliza Jane, Julia Maria & John Davey Petitioners, and Joseph Wallingsford defendant, a manifest error hath happened to the great damage of the said Joseph Wallingsford as by his complaint appears. We being willing that error, if any hath been, should be duly corrected, and full and speedy justice done to the parties aforesaid in this behalf, do command you if judgment be therein given, that under your seal, distinctly and openly, you send the Record and proceedings aforesaid with all things concerning the same to the Supreme Court of the United States, together with this writ, so that you have the same at Washington on the first Monday of August next, in said Supreme Court, to be then there held; and that the Record and proceeding aforesaid being inspected, the said Supreme Court may cause further to be done therein to correct that error, which of right and according to the laws and custom of the United States should be done.

Witness the Hon John Marshall Chief Justice of the said Supreme Court.

 

Issued the 11th day of June 1835.

W. Brent, clk
Circt Court. Dist Cola.
Coty of Washn

Sarah Ann Allen & Children
vs
Joseph Wallingsford

Writ of Error.

Filed 11 June 1835.

  24

District of Columbia. Sct.

The United States of America, to
Sarah Ann Allen for herself and children, greeting:

You are hereby cited and admonished to be and appear at a Supreme Court of the United States on the first Monday of August next, pursuant to a writ of error filed in the clerk's office of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, in the County of Washington, wherein Joseph Wallingsford is plaintiff in error, and you are defendant in error, to show cause, if any there be, why the judgment rendered against the said Joseph Wallingsford as in the said writ of error mentioned, should not be corrected, and why speedy justice should not be done to the parties in this behalf.

Witness the Hon: William Cranch, chief Judge of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, this Eleventh day of June 1835.

Wm. Cranch:

  25

Joseph Wallingsford Pff in Er.
vs
Sarah Ann Allen & Children

Citation

Cited Sarah Allen & her three children
A Hunter
Marshal

 

Washington C.C.U.S.

No 79.

Joseph Wallingsford Plff in Er.
vs
Sarah Ann Allen for herself & children

Filed Jan: 8 1836.

Affirmed with Costs
26th Feby 1836.