Charles Mahoney v. John Ashton. Judgment Record

  11 October Term 1802

Charles Mahoney
vs
The Revd John Ashton

Procedendo. Issue Joined
Jury return and find for Defendt
Judgment nisi
Signed 2d Novr

  • 1. Thomas T Simmons
  • 2. Daniel Nead
  • 3. Christopher Burkhart
  • 4. Benjamin W. Jones
  • 5. Nicholas Griffith
  • 6. Abraham Albaugh
  • 7. Aquila McComas
  • 8. Jacob Ridgely
  • 9. David Hoffman
  • 10. John Hesselius
  • 11. Samuel Tyler Jur
  • 12. Abner Crain
Witnesses for Plff
  • Thomas Harvey
  • William Stephens
  • John Welch
  • Elizabeth Dorsett
  • Mark Fowler
  • Thomas Tillard
  • Overton Carr
  • Nathl Washington
  • Henry Davis
Witnesses for Deft
  • Thomas Lane
  • Thomas Shirbutt
  • Samuel Douglass
  • William Cowley

Jury fee paid

Bailiff Sworn

At the trial of this cause, The Honorable Gabriel Duvall Esquire withdrew from the Bench

The first persons ballotted as Jurors are Thomas Hilleary Lyles, Edward Beall Charles McCauley, Thomas Beard, Thomas T Simmons, Samuel Lane Smith Daniel Nead, Robert Wilkinson, Henry Leatherman, Christopher Burkhart Henry C Neale, and John Hannah of which the following challenges were made

challenged by the petitioner
  • Thomas H Lyles
  • Samuel L. Smith
  • Henry C Neale
challenged by the Defendant
  • Edward Beall
  • Charles McCauley
  • Thomas Beard
  • Robert Wilkinson
  • Henry Leatherman
  • John Hannah
  12 October Term 1802

Pannel made up of the following Jurors

William Billingslea, Benjamin White Jones, Nicholas Griffith Samuel Richardson, James Amos of James, Ignatius Middleton, Thomas Barber George Page, and Abraham Albaugh of which the following Challenges were made

challenged by The Petitioner
  • Ignatius Middleton
  • Thomas Barber
  • George Page
Challenged by The Defendant
  • William Billingslea
  • Samuel Richardson
  • James Amos of James

Pannel made up of the following Jurors

Mordecai Smith, Aquila McComas, Jacob Ridgely, David Hoffman, Alexander Crain, and Thomas Woodward of which the following challenges were made

Challenged by The Petitioner
  • Mordecai Smith
  • Alexaner Crain
  • Thomas Woodward

Pannel made up of the following Jurors

John Hesselius, James Alexander Magruder and Peter Little of which the following challenges were made

James A Magruder, challenged by Petr and Peter Little challenge by Deft

Pannel made up of the following persons

Zachariah Duvall and Francis Boucher Franklin of whom Zachariah Duvall is challenged by the Defendant and Francis B Franklin challanged by the Petitioner;

The only person remaining on the pannel being drawn being called towit, Samuel Tyler Junr is sworn &c

Tales issued to the Sheriff of Anne Arundel County to sumd three persons &c Sheriff return &c he had summoned Lewis Duvall, Lancelot Warfield, and Abner Craine and the pannel being filled up by Lewis Duvall being drawn he is challenged by the Defendant. The pannel being again filled by Lancelot Warfied being drawn he is challenged by the petitioner and the pannel being again filled up by Abner Craine

[sampling]   93 October Term 1802

Charles Mahoney
vs
The Revd John Ashton

Be it remembered that heretofore to wit on the fourth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and Two the Clerk of the Court of Appeals by directions of the said Court of Appeals in pursuance of the Act of assembly in such case made and provided returned to the Clerk of the General Court here a Transcript of the record of proceedings with the writ of the State of Maryland of procedends to the Judges of the General Court here directed on a certain appeal made by a certain John Ashton from a Judgment in the General Court here rendered in a certain plaint on a petition for freedom in the General Court here preferred by a certain Charles Mahoney against the said John Ashton and wherein the General Court here rendered Judgment for the said Charles Mahoney against the said John Ashton and from which said Judgment the said John Ashton appealed to the Court of Appeals and which said Judgment the said Court of Appeals did reverse annul and hold entirely as void which said writ of Procedends and transcript of the record of proceedings aforesaid are in the words and of the Tenor following to wit. The State of Maryland Sct To the Honorable the Judges of the General Court Greeting whereas the Court of Appeals being lately certified of the record and proceedings in a certain plaint on a petition for freedom which was before you in our General Court for the Western Shore between Charles Mahoney Plaintiff and the Reverend John Ashton Defendant on which said plaint you rendered Judgment against the said Reverend John Ashton from which Judgment so rendered the aforesaid John Ashton appealed unto us.   94 October Term 1802 in our High Court of Appeals and we having duly examined the record and proceedings aforesaid in the premises aforesaid at the City of Annapolis on the third Monday of June last did reverse the Judgment aforesaid by you rendered as stated in the third and fifth Bills of Exceptions in the record and proceedings aforesaid certified and therefore there is manifest Error in the rendition of that Judgment wherefore for the causes aforesaid appearing to the said Court of Appeals and agreeably to the act of Assembly in such case made and provided the plaint aforesaid with the record and proceedings therein certified unto you they remit that in that plaint with that speed which of right and according to Law you may proceed therein in the same manner as if no trial had taken place or any appeal had been prosecuted any thing in the record and proceedings aforesaid heretofore certified to the contrary notwithstanding Witness the Honourable Benjamin Rumsey Esquire Chief Judge of our said High Court of Appeals this Twenty fifth day of June Anno Domini eighteen hundred and two.

Issued the 4th day of October 1802

Burton Whetcroft
Clk Court of Appeals

The State of Maryland Sct

At a High Court of Appeals begun and held at the City of Annapolis on the third monday of June being the Twenty first day of the same month in the year of our Lord one thousand Eight hundred and two and in the Twenty sixth year of the Independence of the United States of America

Present
The Honorable Benjamin Rumsey Esquire Chief Judge
Richard Potts and Littleton Dennis Esquires Judges
Burton Whetcroft clk

  95 October Term 1802.

In the Record of Proceedings of the same Court among others is the following to Wit

L.M. Key W.C. J.T.M. A.S. Reverend John Ashton
vs
R.R. J.J. Charles Mahoney

Be it remembered that now here on the second Tuesday of June being the Eleventh day of the said month in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety nine The Judges of the General Court in pursuance of the act of assembly in such case made and provided transmit to the High Court of Appeals here the record and proceedings of a plaint which was lately depending before them in the General Court held for the Western Shore between Charles Mahoney Plaintiff and the Reverend John Ashton Defendant. and wherein the said General Court gave Judgment for the said Charles Mahoney against the said John Ashton and from which said Judgment the said John Ashton prayed an Appeal unto the High Court of Appeals here the tenor of which said record and proceedings is in form following to Wit. The State of Maryland Sct At a General Court of the Western Shore of the said State one of the United States of American 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 United States of America

Present
Jeremiah Townley Chase Esquire Chief Judge
The Honorable Gabriel Duvall and John Done Esquires Judges   96 October Term 1802 John Welch Esquire Sheriff of Anne Arundel County
John Gwinn clk

In the record of Proceedings of the same Court among others is the following to Wit.

Charles Mahoney
against
Revd John Ashton

Be it 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 setting his petition for freedom against the Reverand John Ashton in the words and figures following to Wit To the Honorable 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 George's County although he is Entitled to his freedom being defended from a free woman named Anne Joice he therefore prays your Honours to order summons for 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

G. Duvall for Plaintiff

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 the State nor obstruct him from attending this Court from time to time in support of his petition for freedom preferred against him the said Reverand John Ashton and in the mane 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 Sheriffs of Prince Georges COunty against the said reverend John Ashton returnable immediately   97 October Term 1802 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 hereof 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.

Issued the 18th Day of October 1791 (G.D.)
John Gwinn clk.

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 thus 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 of the Court here 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   98 October Term 1802 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 ninth 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 an so forth and prays further leave of the Court here 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 fourteenth 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 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   99 October Term 1802 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 to the City of London in the Kingdom of Great Britain to examine Evidence in this cause and that the depositions 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 premises 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 until 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 the Commission aforesaid was in form aforesaid directed have not made return thereof to the Court here thereupon further process   100 October Term 1802 of and upon the premises 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 premises 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 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 premises 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   101 October Term 1802 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 by 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 premises 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 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 Robert Wilmer his attorney as the said John Ashton by his attorney aforesaid and the said Charles Mahoney by his attorney last aforesaid files in Court here the following Interrogatories and depositions to wit

Charles Mahoney
against
John Ashton

Petition for freedom. Petitioners Interrogatories 1st Do you know the parties either of them 2nd Did you know Anne 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 and form whom you had your information   102 October Term 1802 and when 4 Do you know any of the grand children of Joice if yea with whom do they live that you know or have heard and from which of Joices children are they descended that you know or have heard 5th 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
agt
John Ashton

Petition for freedom in the General Court The deposition of Mary Crawfurd aged eighty seven years or thereabouts being first sworn in the above suit on the Holy Evangels of Almighty God answered the several Questions as follows To Wit 1st Question Do you know the parties in the above suit answer she does not 2 Question did you know a woman by the name of Ann Joice who formerly belonged to Henry Darnall and who is said to have died at the woodyard answer she does not 3 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 answer 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 Joice came in with Lord Baltimore and that she her mother dose say that said Ann Joyce or any of her   103 October Term 1802 children would be free if they made any stir to obtain 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 Joice 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 Joice or Anne 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 third 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 for a Term of years for having bastard children answers she does not know 6 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 Joice and to whom did they or do they belong respectively answers she did not nor does not know 7 Question do you know or have you heard of any conversation which has at any time passed respecting Charles right or the right of his mother Grand mother or Great Grand mother or any of his ancestors to freedom when   104 October Term 1802 and between whom that was the conversation relate it fully and freely answers she does not know nor has she heard of any conversation 8 Question Do you know and from whom that one of the children of Ann Joyce by the name of Ann Joice Cross was bound to John Chapline 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 proceeding 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 10th Question 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 has not. Sworn to before me the subscriber one of the Associate Judges of Prince Georges County Court this 17th day of October 1792

David Craufurd Associate Justice for Prince Georges County Court

John Hickman
agt
Richard Smith

Petition for freedom in the General Court

John Wheat of Prince Georges County aged sixty two years and upwards being sworn on the holy Evangely of Almighty God deposeth and saith that he does not know the petitioner but once knew Doctor Smith that he knew Charles Mahoney who petitioned against John Ashton but never knew him until since he petitioned being asked if he knew Ann Joice 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   105 October Term 1802 been informed were descendants of Anne Joice that Tom Crane and John Wood when he knew them belonged to Cptn Williams who lived at the woodyard whose widow married George Gordon that Herbert and Wood appeared to be mullatoes 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 husband 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 entitled 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 was acquainted at the Woodyard in the life time of old Colonel Henry Darnall Grandfather of the present Robert Darnall near the Woodyard

April 8th 1794 sworn before Saml Hepburn

  October Term 1802

Charles Mahoney
agt
John Ashton

Howard Duvall of P.G. County aged sixty seven years and upwards being sworn on the holy Evangely of Almighty God deposth 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 mullato woman who is now free and lives as he has understood near the head of the Severn river 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 Chace 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 Sues mother nor does he knew 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 23rd May 1796

John Gwinn Clk

Anne Arundel County October 12th 1792 came Richard Darnall before me the subscriber and made oath on the holy Evangelists of Almighty God that he does not know any of the negroes belonging to John Ashton or any other of the parties except two negro men by the name of Sam and James belonging   107 October Term 1802 to Francis Worthy the said deponant further saith that he never knew nor heard of such a woman as Ann Joyce until 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 Joice until the parties sued for their freedom the said deponant further saith that he never heard that the said Ann Joyce was compelled 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 for their freedom as above mentioned the said deponant further says that he knows no conversation relative to Charles in any respect whatever the said deponant further declares that he does not know nor ever heard of Ann Joice Cross the daughter of Ann Joice 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 Saml Harrison.

Charles Mahoney
agt
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 deponant being at Edward Clagetts house the said Clagett was telling the deponant that Jack   108 October Term 1802 Wood and Jack Crane two of Stephen Wests people had formerly killed Mr Wests 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 deponant understood from said Clagett that the aforesaid Moll Crane and John Wood were brother and sister that the deponant did not know Moll Crane but he knew John Wood and he lived about half a mile from the great house at the Wood Yard and that said Wood lived comfortably in his house when this deponant knew him and he the said Wood has been dead many years that Clagett said that he knew John Wood from the time he was a boy an 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. J. Bullen Prince Georges County 25 May 1792 this day came before the subscriber a magistrate for the County aforesaid Peter Harbard aged as he says about 77 years who says he was born in the family of Henry Darnall who resided at the woodyard in the aforesaid County that at the age of 22 he was purchased my George Gordon and continued the property of said Gordon until he came into the possession of Stephen West of whom he purchased his freedom being asked the several interrogatories agreeable to a paper   109 October Term 1802. handed me signed G. Duvall for Petitioner replyed as follows. To Query Replyed that he knew Charles Mahoney having seen him about 10 years past. To Query 2 & 3 & 4 replyed that he well knew a dark mulatto woman by name Nanny Joice that she was his Grandmother and lived at the Woodyard in the family of Henry Darnall that he has 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 said Proprietor to Henry Darnall as a cook and that when her term of servitude expired Darnall burnt her Indenture and sent her to a Benjamin Halls where she was kept in a kitchen called for five or six months To Query 5 he hath no knowledge of To Query 6 replyed four sons and two daughters viz David Jones Francis Harbard father of Peter the deponent John Wood and Thomas Crane Suzan Harbard and Polly Harbard David Jones lived and dyed in the family of Henry Darnall as also Francis Harbard John Wood and Thomas Crane that he knows several of Suzan Harbars 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 Carrollton Polly who once lived in the family of Ignatius Digges To Query 7 replyed that he hath frequently heard his Grand mother 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 bill read to Peter Harbard he declared that he was ready to swear   110 October Term 1802. to the truth of it

Richd Crampkin

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

Charles Mahoney
agt
John Ashton

Petition for freedom in the General Court

The deposition of Henry Davis of Prince Georges County aged sixty three years being sworn on the holy Evangely of Almighty God touching his knowledge in these causes saith that he does not know John Hickman and that he has seen 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 Joyner and carpenter by trade that he had worked at the woodyard where the said Darnall lived and he has often heard his father say that he knew a negro woman by the name of Joice 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 Joice 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 mullatoes and that their   111 October Term 1802. father were white men that his father was born in prince Georges County about two miles from Upper Marlborough being asked if he has heard his father say that Lord Baltimore brought the said Joice from England answers he cannot say but he has often heard him say that Lord Baltimore got her from a family sum 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 Sir names taken as he understood from their supposed father sworn to this 9th October 1793. Before the subscriber J. Bullen

Charles Mahoney
against
John Ashton

Petition for freedom in the General Court

Eben Parramore of Prince Georges County aged thirty Eight years or thereabouts being duly sworn on the Holy Evangelly 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 Charless claim for freedom now 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 Ratcliffes and being there one Evening he saw a mullato man there and after he was gone he the deponant asked Mrs Ratcliffe who he belonged to she answered he belonged to John Lane the deponant 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   112 October Term 1802. she understood that she came into this Country with Lord Baltimore and that she lived at the woodyard when 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 verry 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 immagined 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 deponant that she was born and lived near the woodyard and when this deponant knew her she lived in blue Shirt neck near pig point the deponant further saith that he well knew Samuel Shekell late of Anne Arundel County deceased and about two years ago he mentioned to the said Scheckell what Mrs Ratcliffe had told him and Scheckle said it was true and that he had always understood that Ann Joice came into this Country with Lord Baltimore and that she was free and not held as a slave until she had Molly and the deponant says that he understood from Mr Shekell that one of the Darnalls at the time owned her but did not mention his christian name that Samuel Shekell lived near mount   113 October Term 1802 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 J. 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 an upon the premises 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 in Court here the following depositions to wit

Charles Mahoney
agt
John Ashton

Petition for freedom in the General Court

The Deposition of Anne 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 1 Questn being asked if he knew the parties in the above suit answers she has seen Mr Ashton and has been at his Chapel but has no acquaintance with him she never saw Charles Mahoney until this day to know him 2 Quest Being asked if he knew a woman by the name of Anne Joice who formerly belonged to Henry Darnall and who is said to have died at the Woodyard   114 October Term 1802. 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 Joice was come her Grandmother sent for her in and talked with her she appeared to be an elderly mulatto woman she never heard that Joice had any pretentions to freedom nor did she know with whom she lived 3 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 4 Questn Being asked if she knew or had heard and from whom that Joice or Ann Joice the woman alluded to in the second Question came from England and when and whether she ever resided in England and how long and is she recollected ever to have heard who were passengers with the said Joyce at the time she came from England answers she never heard any thing of it 5 Quest Being asked do you know and have you heard and from whom that the before mentioned Joice was ever adjudged in Prince Georges County Court to serve for a term of years for having bastard children answers no she never did 6th Question Being asked do you know or have you heard and from whom how many children the said Joice 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 Joice and to whom did they or do they belong respectively answers she has seen a mulatto man and woman named Johny and Nelly who   115 October Term 1802 lived with their Grand father Hill likewise a woman named Polly that lived with Basil Waring also another woman named Sue that belonged to old Mr Carroll that she has been informed within these twelve months past were Grand children of Joice also a mulatto woman named Sue that lived with William Digges which she has been told lately was the daughter of Joice 7th Quest being asked do you know or have you heard of any conversation which has at any time passed respecting Charles 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 she has heard that some of Doctr Smiths negroes were trying to obtain their freedom and she has heard in different companies that there were others doing the same 8 Quest being asked do you know and from whom that one of the children of Ann Joice 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 9 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 have 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 until this summer she has heard her name mentioned 10 Quest being asked have you and further knowledge concerning the right of the petition 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   116. October Term 1802. 17th day of October 1792 Samuel Hepburn

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 severall Questions as follows 1 Quest do you know the parties or either of them answers I have seen Mr Ashton at his chappel have no acquaintance with him never saw Charles Mahoney until the taking of my deposition before Mr Hepburn 2nd Question did you know Ann Joice who formerly lived with Henry Darnall at the Woodyard and how long she has been dead answer she remembers being at her Grandfather Hills when she was a small girl when the cook came in and told her Grand mother that Joice was come her Grandmother sent for her in and talked with her she appeared to be and elderly mulatto woman she never heard that Joice had any pretentions to freedom nor did she know with whom she lived or when she died 3 Question had Joice any children that you know or have heard of relate their names with whom they lived and died and from whom you had yr Information and when Answer since giving my first deposition my uncle Henry Hill and myself had some conversation respecting Ann Joice and he told me that old Joice was Nellys Grand mother and that Sue was Joices daughter and Nellys mother that old Sue died at Mr William Digges and Nelly at Mr Col Hills and she has heard 4th Quest do you know any of the Grand children of Joice with whom do they live that you know or have heard and from which of Joicess children   117 October Term 1802. are they descended that you know or have heard ansr I remember a mullato woman by the name of Sue the property of old Mr 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 Waring had by the name of Polly that Nelly said was also her sister and also man by the name of Johny belonging to my Grandfather Hill brother to the said Nelly 5th Quest Do you know any of the great Grandchildren 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 6 Quest if you have any further knowledge relate it fully and freely answer 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 premises 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 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   118 October Term 1802. following depositions to wit.

Charles Mahoney
agt
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 Evangelly of Almighty God deposeth and saith that she never saw the petitioner until lately and she has no acquaintance with John Ashton the defendant but has seen him that she never knew or saw Ann Joyce from whom she understands the petitioner claims his freedom that about fifty four years ago or thereabouts Mary Hurdle the mother of the deponents late husband had been summoned as a Witness to Prince Georges County Court for one Daniel Lee a mulatto man 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 where 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 Joyces 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 she died that some of the Company asked her who Ann Joyce was and she said she came into the Country a young woman with Lord Baltimore that the said Mary Hurdle then lived near Nottingham   119 October Term 1802. 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 the 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 the Country about the time that Lord Baltimore came in that she recollects nothing further

Sworn Before J. Bullen

Montgomery County Mary 6th 1797 Henry Davis aged about sixty seven years made oath before me one of the Justices of 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 known Charles Mahoney 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 then into England and brought to Maryland by Mr Calvert the then Proprietor that upon his returning to England he made a present of her to Mr Darnall and that he has heard his fathers brother David Davis say the report was that Joice if Justice was done was entitled 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 Sir names   120 October Term 1802 Toms Excepted which was Crane to the fifth he says the he doth not To the sixth he answered as to the fifth To the second he answers as to the third To the eighth that he hath not any knowledge more than he has stated

Sworn Before George French

Charles Mahoney
agt
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 until lately and she has no acquaintance with John Ashton the Defendant but has seen him that she never knew or saw Ann Joice from whom she understands the Petitioner claims his freedom that about fifty four years ago or thereabouts Mary Hurdle the mother of the deponants 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 Right 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 Joyces 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 heard 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   121 October Term 1802 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 deponant and her husband lived with her that she always lived in Prince Georges County as the deponent understood from her that she came into the 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 are now dead talk about it but can't recollect what they said more than they cencured 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 nothing 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 Indies 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 any conversation with your daughter Priscilla who lives in the   122 October Term 1802. Federal City about the claim of the petitioners or the defendants of Joice to freedom if you had at what time was it and what did you inform she says she never had any conversation with her daughter on the subject to the best of her recollection and never told her any thing about it unless her daughter ever heard her lately when she was talking with the petitioner Charles Mahoney 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 wood 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 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 go 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   123 October Term 1802. Ann they lived in the same neighbourhood of Thomas Tucker and the deponents mother in Law that they two have been dead upwards of forty years that her mother in Law also lived in that neighbourhood that the Lovejoys 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 halfway between Piscattaway and Nottingham that he 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 defendants of Anne Joice if the Witness does or is unable to attend Court

John Johnson for Petr
John T Mason for Masters

John Hickman
agt
Richard Smith

Charles Mahoney
agt
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 Joice 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 Joice 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   124 October Term 1802 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 Baltimores 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 one called Frank the other called David the name of the fourth he cannot recollect he cannot recollect the sirnames of any but Crane he understood they took their names from their fathers and had different sir names that his father was born in Prince Georges County about two miles from upper Marlborough and continued then until a few years before deponants birth as he has frequently heard him say this deponant further says he never heard his father say whether the said Joice 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 Joice and he knew the woman who was called Joice 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   125 October Term 1802 understood from his father that he had heard Mr Darnall say that Joice came in with Lord Baltimore and that she was about seventeen or eighteen 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 Wood Yard 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 22nd day of May 1797. Allen Quynn

This deposition agreed to be read in evidence
W Cooke
John Johnson

Charles Mahoney
agt
John Ashton

Petition for freedom in the General Court

The deposition of Nicholas Lowe Darnall aged sixty four years being first duly sworn on the holy Evangels of Almighty God deposeth and saith that about four years ago he the deponant received a Letter from Doctr Richard Smith informing him that his man John some of Mr Ashtons people and some of Frank Worthys 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 Doctor Smith he the Deponant went to 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 deponant the said negroes had been with him to make the said enquiry but that he the said Scheckell had told them that he knew nothing of Ann Joice and had never heard of her which he again repeated to the deponant and added that he knew nothing of said Baltimore or Col Darnall   126 October Term 1802. but had heard there were such men sworn to in open Court this 28th day of May 1797

John 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 does or is unable to attend Court

John Johnson for Petrs
John T Mason for Deft

Mr Darnall further deposeth that on the 28th May 1797 Mr John Johnson the deponent Mrs Hurdle Mr Talbut and two of the Petitioners being present and all that were present Mr John Johnson asked Talbut some questions relative to the subject upon which he was about to give his deposition that he Mr Darnall touched Talbut 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

John Johnson for Petr
John T. Mason for Masters.

The deposition of Nathaniel Talbut 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 deponant hath known John Wheat Senior of Prince Georges County ever since the deponant was a boy and hath always lived in his neighbourhood within a few miles of him and for now 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 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 clk.

  127 October Term 1802.

This deposition to be read in evidence if the Witness does 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 Petrs
John Thomson 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 and upon the premises 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 attorneys whereupon as well the aforesaid Charles Mahoney as the said John Ashton by their attorneys aforesaid file in Court here the following dpositions to wit

Charles Mahoney
agt
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 1 Quest Being asked if he knew the parties in the above suit answers no he does not 2 Quest being asked if he knew a woman by the name of Ann Joice who belonged to Henry Darnall and who is said to have died at the Woodyard answers he   128 October Term 1802. never did or ever heard of the name until now 3 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 what did say that Joice before mentioned was free or entitled to be free and for what reason and to relate any conversation that he may have heard from them or either of them or any other person up on the subject answers no he never did 4 Quest being asked if he knew or had heard and from whom that Joice or Ann Joice 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 Joice at the time she came from England Answers no he never heard of Ann Joice until this time 5th Question Being asked do you know and have you heard and from whom that the before mentioned Joice was ever adjudged in Prince Georges County to serve for a term 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 Joice 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 Grandchildren of said Joice 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 7 Quest Being asked do you know or have you heard of any conversation which has at any time passed respecting Charles 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 answer he never heard a word respecting either   129 October Term 1802. or any of them he remembers to have heard his father say often times and likewise his grandmother Sarah Perdue say that John Wood Thomas Crane and another they called Frank who at that time live with Captain Williams at the Woodyard were Entitled to their freedom and was suprised they never applied for it but whether they were descendants from Ann Joice or not he does not know 8th Quest being asked do you know and from whom that one of the children of Ann Joice by the name of Ann Joice Cross was bound to John Chaplain 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 from whom what became of Ann Joice 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 Question 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 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. Saml Hepburn

Quest Did your mother Rachel Ratlief the person alluded to in the deposition of Elenor Paramore respecting the freedom of some negroes belonging to the Revd Mr John Ashton & others ever was the linen or do any kind of work for the said Paramore answers my mother Rachel Ratlief never did was for the said Paramore nor did she ever do any kind of work to my certain knowledge for the said Elen Paramore Question were your mother Rachel Ratlief acquainted or did she ever see the said Elen Paramore answer Elen Paramore never see my mother Rachel   130 October Term 1802. Ratlief who lived with me all my life time after my being a woman grown Quest did any person ever apply to your mother to enquire whether she knew any thing respecting the freedom of some negroes answer yes Ths Tillard & Richd Richardson did once apply to my mother but she told them she knew nothing of the freedom of any negroes whatever or any that was Entitled to their freedom Mrs Andersons negro woman Maria did also apply to my mother Rachef Ratlief to enquire about her freedom but my mother told her she knew nothing of her freedom if she was Entitled to it it was what she did not know Qs what length of time do you immagine your mother lived with you & did she continue to live with you until her death ansr about sixteen or seventeen years and she lived with me until her death Ques did your mother Rl Ratlief was for herself to the time or her death ansr my mother never washed for herself for fifteen or sixteen years before her death I did her washing and every thing else for her Qs why did you wash for your mother such a considerable length of time ansr because she was not able to wash or do any kind of work whatever unless it was a little knitting but she never washed as above Quest then your mother Rachel Ratlief had no connexion with Elen Paramore nor was she in the least acquainted with him answer my mother was not in the least to my knowledge acquainted with Elen Paramore nor had she any connexion with him any respect Qs Do you recollect whether the said Elen Paramore ever visited or was he ever on any occassion at your house with whom yr mother lived to the time of her death answer Eben Paramore was never at my house nor did I ever see him but once as he passed the main road and was then told by some one that it was the said Eben Paramore Qs Did your mother   131 October Term 1802. Rachel Ratlief ever live near the Wood Yard in Prince Georges County as asserted in the deposition of the said Eben Paramore answer my mother never did live near the wood yard to my knowledge A A County June 10th 1796 Sarah Ratlief aged about forty years or thereabouts came before me the subscriber and made oath that the answers she has made to the deft Interrogatories are to the best of her knowledge Just and true

Thos Tongue

Qs Did your mother Ra Ratlief the person alluded to in the deposition of Eben Paramore respecting the freedom of some negroes belonging to the Revd Mr John Ashton and others ever wash the Linen or do any kind of work for the said Paramore answer my mother never did wash or do any kind of work for Eben Paramore Qs were your mother Rachl Ratlief acquainted or did she ever see the said Eben Paramore ansr Eben Paramore never as at my sisters Sarah Ratliefs with whom my mother lived that I know of I lived within two or three hundred yards of my said sister & must have knew if the said Paramore was ever there Qs what length of time do you immagine your mother Rl Ratlief lived in blue shiert neck ansr my mother Rachel Ratlief lived in Blue Shirt neck about forty years Qs how long a time do you apprehend yr mother was too infirm and incapable of washing or doing any labourious work before her death ansr my mother was too inform & incapable to do any kind of laborious work for fifteen or sixteen years I apprehend 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 said Eben Paramore ever resided or frequented the house of your sister Sarah Ratlief with whom your mother lived answer the said Eben Paramore never was at my sister Sarah Ratliefs with whom my mother   132 October Term 1802. lived to my knowledge and I am convinced he never was at my said sisters Ques Pray what character does the said Eben Paramore bear answer I believe a very bad one Quest why do you think he bears a bad character ansr because he once stole shott from the store of Jos Macceney and was detected by Benj Carr store keeper to the said Joseph Macceney who threatened the said Eben Paramore to have him whipped I was present at the time this theft was committed & see the said Paramore picking up the shot he had stolen a part of which dropd on the floor as he attempted to conceal it in his pockett AA County June 10th 1796 John Lambath aged about fifty five years came before me the subscriber and made oath that the answers he has made to the defft interrogts are to the best of his knowledge in every respect Just and true

Thomas Tongue

Montgomery County Sct May 24th 1792 Eleanor Carroll aged about Eighty six 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 2nd remembers there was a Joice in the family of the Woodyard then Mr Henry Darnall does not know where she died and understood that she was a slave 3 does not remember that she heard that she was entitled to freedom 4 never heard that Joice came from England never heard that she lived at 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 Joice had some children the names of some of them were Davey Frank and Tom that she thinks that Frank died in the possession of her father Mr Henry Darnall and Tom in the possession of Capt Williams or Mrs Gordon   133 October Term 1802. 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 Mahoney to freedom or of any of his ancestors 8 she does not know John Hickman or any thing concerning him 10 she never heard that Ann 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 deponant is well acquainted with John Wheat Senior of Prince Georges County whose deposition this deponant 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 Joice are Petitioners against John Ashton defendant and that he this deponant hath known the said John Wheat Senior as long as he can well remember any thing and the deponant 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. Saml 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 Ann Joice a mulatto woman from whom the petitioner alleges he his descended who formerly lived with Henry Darnall of Anne Arundel County.   134 October Term 1802. 3rd Do you know or have you heard and from whom that the said Ann Joice 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 and from whom that the said Anne Joice was adjudged to serve for a term of years for having children in Mr Darnalls family and have you heard and form whom that their 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 Ann Joice died 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 have been descended from the said Joice and who have petitioned for their freedom 7 Did you know Sue the daughter of Anne Joice and did you know Mary the daughter of Sue Mary died the property of Basil Waring and Sue the property of Ignatius Diggs deceased 8 Did you know Molly one of the daughters of Anne Joice and Kitty or Killy another daughter or either and which of them and did you know Sarah who died in possession of Henry Darnall about Eighteen months ago and who was daughter of Sue who was daughter of Ann Joice 9 Do you know Will the son of Sarah mentioned in the preceeding Interrogatories the property of Richard Darnall 10 Did you know or have you heard of Anne Joice Cross bound to John Chapman in the year 1701 and was she the reputed daughter of the aforesaid Anne Joice 11 have you any further knowledge of this subject that will tend to the benefit of the Petitioner if yea   135 October Term 1802 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 first Interrogatory answers he knows the defendant but not the petitioner 2nd Interrogatory answers no 3rd Interrogatory answers he knows nothing about it he has heard of the name of Joice has some notion that he has heard that a woman of the name of Joice 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 7 Inty answers he knew one Sue but does not know that she was the daughter of Joice it is said that Sue died the property of Mr Ignatius Digges 8th Inty answers he knows nothing about them 9 Inty answers no 10 Inty ansrs knows nothing at all about them 11 Inty ansrs nothing sworn to this 14 April 1792 before me one of the Justices of the peace for Prince G County. Thomas Digges. John Smith Brookes.

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 answers he knows Doctr Smith very well but does not know the petitioner 2 Inty answers he knew nothing of a woman by the name of Ann Joice living with Mr Darnall but he knew of a woman by the name of Joice that lived at the Wood Yard the property of Henry Darnall and after him to his son Henry but she was a black negro 3 Inty Answers he always understood the Joice he knew was a slave and treated as such 4 Inty answers never that he heard of and the children of the Joice that he knew were always considered as slaves and very good ones 5 Inty ansrs the Joice he knew he believes died at the Wood Yard the property of Mr Darnall 6 Inty ansrs   136. October Term 1802. he does not know of any of that name that lived with Mr Ashton 7 Inty Answers he knew one Sue who died at Mr Digges and who he beleives was the daughter of the Joyce he knew does not know Mary the daughter of Sue 8th Inty answers he did not know nothing of this Inty 9 Inty answers No 10 Inty answers no he never heard of an Ann Joice till lately 11 Inty answers he knows nothing more about it being asked if he ever understood that the Joice he knew was 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 Esquire 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 deponant 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 Robert Bowie

Prince Georges County to Wit Personally appeard before me the Subscriber one of the Justices of the peace for the County aforesaid Robert Bowie Esquire 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 Cook of the same County who on the twenty eighty day of May 1796 deposed   137 October Term 1802 before me 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 27 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 deponant 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 deponant knows the said Eben Paramore answers she has seen him but once that she recollects and then he was passing the public roads and this deponant was then told his name being asked if the said Rachel Ratcliffe ever washed the Linen or did any other work for the said Paramore answers that her mother Rachel Ratcliffe never did wash or do any kind of work for the said Eben Paramore that she this deponant is Confident her mother never did see the said Paramore or ever had any acquaintance with him the said Deponant 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 deponant used to wash and do the other necessary work for her mother who never was from the house of the deponant for many years   138 October Term 1802. before her death and the said Paramore was never at the deponants 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 deponant 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 entitled to their freedom that Mrs Andersons 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 entitled 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 petitions for freedom depending in the General Court where the petitioners claim their freedom as being descended from Anne Joice

John Johnson for Petitioners
John T. Mason for Defendts

Charles Mahoney
agt
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 deponant 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 kind of work for the said Paramore answers he is quite certain she never did and that she never saw the said Paramore or had any acquaintance wit hhim This deponent further saith that   139 October Term 1802. 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 which was done by the deponents sister Sarah Ratcliff the deponent further saith that he has never heard of the said Paramore being at the house of the said Sarah and is 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 the blue shirt neck near Pigg point about fifty 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.

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 Joice

John Johnson for Petrs
John T. Mason for Defts

Charles Mahoney
against
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 deponants 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   140 October Term 1802. 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 deponant 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 Octr 1797.

John Gwinn Clk.

This deposition to be read in evidence
John Johnson for Plff
W. Cooke for Deft

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 that deponent being 64 years of age the 28th of August last past old style and being duly sown 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 their freedom that he this   141 October Term 1802. deponent never to the best of his knowledge heard his 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 the other day he heard of such a person from one of the petitioners John Hickman that this deponents father lived and died between Upper Marlborough and the Woodyard and some where about two or three miles from Marlborough 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 years 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 fathers house after he this deponent was married that this deponent never knew Peter Knight nor does he know that he ever saw him sworn to before me 24th October 1797. John Randall

And as well the aforesaid Charles Mahoney as the said John Ashton by their attorneys aforesaid file in Court here the following admission to wit It is admitted that William Diggess Sue a mulatto woman David a Carpenter Frank Herbert Jack Wood and Tom Crane all four mullato men were the children of Joice who died at the Wood Yard and who together with her 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 Carrolls Sue was the mother of Nelly who was the mother of Charles   142 October Term 1802 and Patrick Mahoney the petitioners

John Johnson for Petr
John T Mason for Defts

And the said John Ashton by Luther Martin his attorney comes and defends the force and injury when &ca and says that the said Charles Mahoney is the proper slave of 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 &ca 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 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 Honourable Gabriel Duvall one of the Judges of the Court here withdraws from the bench having been former Council for the aforesaid Charles Mahoney the Petitioner 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 Patridge 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 Barber John Love and Samuel Coats 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 made and provided   143 October Term 1802 challenged by the parties that is to say the said Thomas Hodgkin Thomas Barber William D. Taylor James Lawrence Henry McPherson and Thomas Blackistone 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 Soloman 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 on the part of the petitioner and the said Richard Key Watts William Shaw and John Trueman on the part of the defendant other Jurors being called come that is to say George Digges William Hamilton Mathew Ball and John Brice and because the said Jurors so appearing being in like manner challenged by the parties that is to say the said George Digges and William Hamilton Mathew Ball and John Brice and because the said Jurors so appearing being in like manner challenged by the parties that is to say the said George Digges and William Hamilton on the part of the petitioner and the said Mathew Ball and John Brice on the part of the defendant other Juror being called come that is to say John Welsh whereupon the said John Welch is sworn upon the Jury and because a 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 certain of them come 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   144 October Term 1802 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 another Juror of the by standers so summoned by the sheriff aforesaid being called comes that it 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 Patridge 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   145 October Term 1802 whereupon the said Richard Mackubin is sworn upon that Jury which said Nicholas Brewer Richard Dorsey and Richard 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 empannelled 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 Mrs Carrolls Sue who was the daughter of Mr Digges Sue who was the daughter of a black woman named Joice formerly held and claimed by Col Henry Darnall that the said Henry Darnall departed this life in the year seventeen hundred and eleven and that the s aid 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 Wood Yard 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 Joice 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 Joice in her life time or any of her children ever claimed the right of freedom and the Jurors aforesaid further say that the said Joice came into this Country with Charles Lord Baltimore son of Cecilius Lord Baltimore from England between the year sixteen hundred and seventy six and the fifteenth of February sixteen   146 October Term 1802. 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 attornies aforesaid filed in Court here the following bill of exception to wit

Charles Mahoney
against
John Ashton

The petitioner to support the issue on his part offered to read the deposition of Henry Davis which deposition was agreed to be read in evidence except in the parts objected to the Counsil for the defendant objected to the reading of part of the said Daviss 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 with 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 Counsil prayed leave to except and that this his bill of Exceptions may be signed sealed and enrolled pursuant to the 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 premises day therefore is given to the   147 October Term 1802. parties aforesaid before the Court here until the second Tuesday of May next to hear their Judgment of and upon the premises 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 premises 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 premises 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 into 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 Joice 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 his attorneys aforesaid for a new trial on the issue aforesaid which is by the Court here granted to him Therefore set a Jury thereon appear before the Judges of our General Court here on the second Tuesday of   148 October Term 1802. may next by whom and so forth and who neither and so forth to 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 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 vii MDCLxvii account of servants imported into Maryland upon the ship John and Christian of Bristol viz Richard Butler Alice Phillips Jerman Mahoone Teag Mahoney Grace Roberts Charles Brown Margaret Couthland Mary Joice Morris Welch Sheely Teag Katharine Watts Julian Welch Abraham Saylee John Brown Junior Dermott Descole Ledia Arundel William Powell Teag Calahone Ellenor Anglen Charles Price Margaret Calahone John Brown George Howell Ann Martin Ruthro Morris Rowland Jones Mortimer Okryan Bridget Jones Jenkin Price Derby Bryan Ann Morris Bartholomew Owen John Kile Richard Thomas Henry Gautheridge Julian Shoolevant Rice Berren William Young Derby Shoolevant Rice Griffith Dennis Holand Daniel Lyne John Rees Daniel Holand James Shoolevant Evan Philips Desmond Malihone William Cunisby John Brown Edmund Kennedy James Casey

Tho Freeman proves 51 rights and assigns Charles Calvert Esqr vide Charles Calvert Esquire asst to Jenifer in fol 547

The above said rights of land due for the transportation of the said persons here above mentioned were proved [illegible] Thomas Freeman to be originally due to the said Freeman and never yet made   149 October Term 1802. use of by him this done before me this tenth day of June M D C L xvii
Charles Calvert

I Thomas Freeman doe assigne all my interest 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 heand this eleventh day of June one thousand six hundred and 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 In Testimony whereof I hereto set my hand and affix the seal of office this twelfth day of February seventeen hundred and ninety eight
John 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 Murow William Johnson Elisha Wheatly 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 Sim James Neale James Allston Henry Waughop Samuel Judson Coolidge and Nathan Hammond whereupon certain of them that is to say Sameul Judson Coolidge and   150 October Term 1802 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 Alleston 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 according to the act of assembly in such case provided challenged that is to say the said Martin Kreps and Samuel Elliott 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 who are sworn upon the Jury who to speak the truth in the premises 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 Thefore it is adjudged by the Court here that the aforesaid Charles Mahoney the Petitioner aforesaid be hence freed and discharged of and from the   151 October Term 1802. 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 nine hundred and 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 petition 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 bills of Exceptions to wit

Charles Mahoney
against
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 read in Evidence to the Jury to wit that the said Just so they served Ann Joyces family that by all accounts they are in confinement now and they ought to have been free long ago as containing in the declaration of opinions as to a right and not a declaration as to any   152 October Term 1802. fact and therefore improper and inadmissable to go to the Jury by the Court were of opinion the said part was admissable to be read in evidence to the Jury the same being General reputation of the fact that Ann Joyces 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 ninetynine

Jeremiah Townley Chase (seal)
John Done (seal)

Charles Mahoney
against
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 Counsel objected to the reading of the following part of said deposition to wit that she has heard the Tuckers and Lovejoys who were old people and who are now dead talk about it but cant recollect what they said more than they considered those who kept them and the Court were of opinion the said parts 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 counsel 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
against
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 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   153 October Term 1802 adjudged defective the fact that Anne 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
agt
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 evidence the Jury are of opinion that the woman Joice 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 accordingly to the Statute in such case made and provided this third day of June 1799.

Jeremiah Townley Chase (seal) John Done (seal)

Mahoney
agt
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 Joice the ancestor of the petitioner was a negro woman and carried with her owner claiming her as a slave from the Island of   154 October Term 1802. Barbadoes to England and afterwards brought into this County 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 Counsel 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

Jeremiah Townley Chase (seal)
John Done (seal)

And thereupon the said John Ashton by his attornies aforesaid prays that he may appeal from the Judgment aforesaid of the Court here to the Judges of the 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 surities 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 or Assigns to which payment well and truly to be made and done we kind 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.

  155 October Term 1802.

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 and 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 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 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 Sc I hereby certify that the aforegoing is a true Copy taken from the records of proceedings of the   156 October Term 1802. 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

(seal)

John Gwinn Clk General Court Western Shore State of Maryland

And now here at this day to wit the said second Tuesday of June being the Eleventh day of the same month in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety nine come here into the High Court of Appeals as well the aforesaid Reverend John Ashton by Luther Martin Philip Barton Key William Cooke John Thomson Mason and Arthur Shaaff his attornies as the aforesaid Charles Mahoney by Richard Ridgely Jonathan Roberts Wilmer and John Johnson his attornies and thereupon on motion of the said Charles Mahoney by his attornies aforesaid aforesaid it is ruled by the Court here that the said John Ashton assign the Errors in the record and proceedings of the Judgment aforesaid or Judgment by the Court here will be rendered against him in default thereof and the said John Ashton by his attorneys aforesaid prays a day in Court here until the second Tuesday of November next to assign Errors in the record and proceedings of the Judgment aforesaid and he hath it the same day is given to the said Charles Mahoney then &ca At which said second Tuesday of November being the Twelfth day of the same month in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety nine which said day was given to the said John Ashton to assign Errors and the record and proceedings of the Judgment aforesaid come again as well the aforesaid John   157 October Term 1802. Ashton by his attorneys aforesaid as the aforesaid Charles Mahoney by his attornies aforesaid and the aforesaid John Ashton by his attornies aforesaid cometh and saith that in the record and proceedings aforesaid and also in the giving of the Judgment aforesaid there is manifest error in this to wit that by the record aforesaid it appears that the said Judgment in manner and form aforesaid given was given for the said Charles Mahoney against him the said John Ashton in the plaint aforesaid whereas by the Law of the State of Maryland that Judgment ought to have been for the said John Ashton against the said Charles Mahoney Therefore in this there is manifest Error and he prays that the said Judgment for the Error aforesaid and others being in the record and proceedings aforesaid may be reversed annulled and held Entirely as void and that he may be restored to all things which by occasion of the Judgment aforesaid he hath Lost and that the said Charles Mahoney to the Errors aforesaid may rejoin &ca and that the Court here may proceeds to the Examination of as well the record and proceedings aforesaid as of the matters aforesaid above for Error assigned &ca And the said Charles Mahoney by his attorneys aforesaid says that there is no Error in the record and proceedings aforesaid or in the rendition of the Judgment aforesaid and prays likewise that the Court here may proceed to the examination as well of the record and proceedings aforesaid as the matters aforesaid by the said John Ashton above for Error assigned and that the Judgment aforesaid may be in all things affirmed and so forth But because the Court here are not yet advised to give their Judgment of and upon the premises aforesaid day therefore is given to the parties aforesaid until the second Tuesday of June next to hear their Judgment of an upon the said premises   158 October Term 1802 because the Court here there of are not yet &ca At which said second tuesday of June being the tenth day of the same month in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred come again here into Court as well the said John Ashton by his attornies aforesaid as the said Charles Mahoney by his attorney aforesaid But because the Court here are not yet advised to give their Judgment of and upon the premises aforesaid day therefore is further giving to the parties aforesaid before the Judges of the High Court of Appeals here until the second Tuesday of November next to hear their Judgment of and upon the said premises because the Court now here thereof as not yet &ca At which said second Tuesday of November being the eleventh day of the same month in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred come again as well the aforesaid John Ashton by his attornies aforesaid as the said Charles Mahoney by his attorneys aforesaid But because the Court here are not yet advised to give their Judgment of and upon the premises aforesaid day therefore is further given to the parties aforesaid before the Judges of the High Court of Appeals here until the second Tuesday of June next to hear their Judgment of and upon the said premises because the Court now here thereof are not yet &ca At which said second Tuesday of June being the ninth day of the same month in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one come again as well the said John Ashton by his attornies aforesaid as the said Charles Mahoney by his attorneys aforesaid But because the Court here are not yet advised to give their Judgment of and upon the premises aforesaid Thereupon further process of and upon the said premises between the parties aforesaid it is further continued by act of assembly until the second Tuesday of November next because the Court here thereof are not yet advised &c At which said second Tuesday   159 October Term 1802 of November being the tenth day of the same month in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one come again as well the aforesaid John Ashton by his attornies aforesaid as the said Charles Mahoney by his attornies aforesaid but because the Court here are not yet advised to give their Judgment of and upon the premises aforesaid day therefore is given to the parties aforesaid according to act of assembly before the Judges of the High Court of Appeals here until the third monday of June next to hear their Judgment of and upon the said premises because the Court not where therefore not yet &ca At which said third Monday of June being the Twenty first day of the same month Anno Domini one thousand eight hundred and two come again here into the said High Court of Appeals as well the said John Ashton by his attornies aforesaid as the said Charles Mahoney by his attornies aforesaid whereupon as well the record and proceedings aforesaid and the Judgment given in form aforesaid as the matter aforesaid by the said John Ashton above for Error assigned being seen heard and fully understood by the Court here and mature deliberation had thereupon for that it appears to the Court here that there is no Error in the record of proceedings of the rendition of the Judgment aforesaid as stated in the first and fourth Bills of Exceptions Therefore it is considered by the Court here that the Judgment aforesaid in form aforesaid given by the said General Court as stated in the said first and fourth Bills of Exception he in all things affirmed and stand in full force and effect the said cause above for Error assigned and alleged in any wise notwithstanding and because it also appears to the Court here that in the record and proceeding of the rendition of the Judgment aforesaid as stated in the third and fifth Bills of Exceptions it is manifestly Erred Therefor it is considered   160 October Term 1802 by the Court here that the Judgment aforesaid in form aforesaid given as stated in the said third and fifth Bill of Exceptions be revoked annulled and held entirely as void and that the said John Ashton be restored to all things which by reason of the Judgment aforesaid he hath left and because it clearly appears to the Court here that Justice and the merits of this case require that there should be a new trial of the issue aforesaid Thereupon the Court here persuant to the directions of the act of Assembly in such case made and provided order and direct a remission of the record and proceedings aforesaid to the Clerk of the General Court held for the Western Shore with the writ of the State of Maryland of Procedends to the Judges of the General Court directing them to proceed in the action aforesaid and to a new trial thereof in the same manner as if no trial had taken place or any appeal had been prosecuted the record and proceedings aforesaid with the said writ of Procedents is therefor remitted to the Clerk of the General Court for the Western Shore accordingly

Test Burton Whetcroft clk

The State of Maryland Sc I hereby certify that the aforegoing is a True Copy taken from the record of proceedings of the High Court of Appeals of said State In Testimony whereof to this Exemplification I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said High Court of Appeals this fourth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and Two and in the Twenty seventh year of the Independence of the United States of America

(seal)

Burton Whetcroft Clerk Court of Appeals State of Maryland

And now at this day to wit the second Tuesday tuesday of October being the twelfth day of the said month in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and Two come into the General Court here as well the said Charles Mahoney by Richard Ridgely   161 October Term 1802 and John Johnson his attorneys as the said John Ashton by Luther Martin Philip Barton Key John Thomson Mason Robert Goodloe Harper and Arthur Shaaff his attornies and the said John Ashton by his attornies aforesaid file in Court here the deposition of Thomas Douglass and Samuel Lane and which are in form following to wit

The deposition of Samuel Douglass of Ann Arundel County aged forty nine years and upwards taken this 10th day of April 1801 in presence of Truman Tyler attorney for the petitioners and John Thomson Mason attorney of the owners to be by consent read in evidence on the trial of sundry petitioners for freedom now depending in Prince Georges County Court brought by sundry persons who claim their freedom as being descended in the maternal line from Ann Joice who was brought into Maryland by Lord Baltimore which said Ann Joice the petitioners alledge was entitled to her freedom and was unjustly detained in slavery the said Samuel Douglass being first duly sworn on the holy Evangels of Almighty God deposeth and saith that he was acquainted with two women both widows the one named Ratcliffe who lived in blue shirt neck the other named Sarah Cooly who lived and died in Ann Arundel County upon my Lords manor near pig point they both lived to be very old woman and are both dead Mrs Cooley about three years and Mrs Ratcliffe about five or six that he knew Mrs Ratcliffe two or three years he knew Mrs Cooly very well he lived some time in the same house with her that he was present about seven years ago this whitsentide when a negro man who he thinks said he belonged to one Warner came to this Mrs Cooly & Mrs Ratcliffe who were then together to know if they could dive him any account of Ann Joice or give any evidence that would entitle her family to their freedom Mrs Cooly told him that Ann Joice was a Guinea negro and that he had no more right to her freedom that her old negro woman Cass daughter Peg   162 October Term 1802 Mrs Ratcliffe then asked Mrs Cooly if Ann Joice was a guinea negro how did she come by the name of Joice Mrs Cooly replied she knew nothing about it except what she had heard from her husbands uncle who was an Englishman man and come into this Country about the same time that Lord Baltimore did that she had often heard him say that Lord Baltimore at sea on his passage to this Country brought three Guinea negroes from on board of a ship and that they were the cleverest guinea negroes he ever saw that two of them were men and one of them a woman that Lord Baltimore called the woman Ann and the men Robin and Will that a sailor on board the ship in which Lord Baltimore sailed by the name of Joice took a great liking to Ann and was very intimate with her and that the other sailors on that account called her Ann Joice that it was from this she took the name of Joice and this deponent further saith that Mrs Cooly further observed that she had also heard her husbands uncle say that when Lord Baltimore returned to England he either gave or sold these negroes to Col Darnall and further this deponant saith not sworn to before me Justice of the peace for Prince Georges County at Upper Marlborough the day and year first above written

Samuel Hepburn.

The deposition of Thomas Lane of Anne Arundel County aged seventy four years and upwards taken this Tenth day of April 1801, in presence of Trueman Tyler attorney for the petitioners and John T Mason attorney for the owners to be by consent read in evidence on the trial of sundry petitioners for freedom now depending in Prince Georges County Court brought by sundry persons who claim their freedom as being descended in the maternal line from Ann Joice brought into this Country by Lord Baltimore which said Ann Joice the petitioners alledge was Entitled to her freedom and was unjustly detained in slavery the said Thomas Lane being first   163 October Term 1802. duly sworn on the holy Evangels of Almighty God deposeth and saith that he is the son of Harrison Lane who lived and died in Anne Arundel County that his father was considerably upwards of seventy years old when he died and has been dead about thirty seven or eight years that he this deponant has often and often heard one John Stephens who was an English man lived in Anne Arundel County and died there a very old man say and mention in his fathers family that he John Stephens came into this Country with Lord Baltimore and was Stewart to the Ship in which they came that the said Stephens talking of his passage over frequently mentioned the circumstances of their being overtaken by very bad and stormy weather on his passage of Lord Baltimores regret that he ever left England and of his great desire to fall in with some ship going to England that he might write by her that after the storm had subsided they came in sight of a ship and made for her that they spoke her at sea and found her a Guinea man from the Coast of Guinea loaded with negroes. that Lord Baltimore went on board of her and bought three negroes two men and one woman which he brought with him on board the ship he sailed that the Captain laughed at Lord Baltimore for buying negroes at sea to which Lord Baltimore replied that he understood the Gentlemen in Maryland had negroes for servants to wait upon them and that he wished when he got to Maryland to conform to the manners and customs of the place that Lord Baltimore named the woman that he thus bought Ann one of the men Gouler Robin and the name of the other he does not very well remember but he thinks it was Ebo Jack or Ebo Will that the second mate of the ship in which Lord Baltimore and the said Stephens came to this Country was named Daniel Joice that soon after these negroes came on board Daniel Joice took a   164 October Term 1802 great liken to Anne became very intimate with her and used to sleep with her and divide his mess with her that the sailors used to laugh at Joice and called the negro woman Ann Joice that the circumstance was mentioned to Lord Baltimore on board the ship who laughed very hartily at it and proposed to Daniel Joice the mate to have a weding that when Lord Baltimore returned from this Country to England he gave these three negroes or sold them to Col Darnall that he has often heard the said Stephens say that after Lord Baltimore went to England there was none of his ship mates who came to this Country with him left behind but these negroes that he this deponent has often known the said Stephens to go all the way from Herring bay where he lived down to the woodyard as he said on purpose to see Ann Joice and Gouler Robin that after John Stephens married he became the Tenant of his father Harrison Lane for upwards of Twenty years where he followed his trade as a Taylor and some few years before his death he moved about four miles further off this deponent being asked by Mr Tyler if he ever heard the said Stephens say that the said Guinea ship touched any where on her passage and whether in particular she ever touched on the coast of England answers that he did not that he heard the said Stephens say the said ship with the negroes on board was bound to some part of America but he does not now remember to what part and that she was consigned to some gentleman in America whose name he mentioned but this deponent does not now remember it this deponent says further that the said Stephens was a Taylor by trade that when he came on board the ship as he has heard the said Stephens say being a smart active name he was appointed steward of the ship that being pleased with it the said Stephens determined to abandon his trade and follow the seas that he the said   165 October Term 1802. Stephens to qualify himself for the seas kept a Book in which he kept a reckoning of their passage from England to this Country and set down in it every thing that happened on their passage which he Stephens called Log Book that Stephens when he first went to house keeping lived in a wooden house with a wooden chimney to it that this house caught fire from the chimney and had liked to have been burned the greater part of the gable was burned Stephens alarmed at this put his papers which he valued into a small trunk and requested Harrison Lane this deponents father to let him leave this trunk of papers in his house for safe keeping which his father consented to that this trunk with the papers remained in this deponents possession long after the death of this deponents father and the said Stephens that this deponent has often amused himself with reading the said Stephens Log book above described and well recollects that in it was stated the every day and the Latitude on which Lord Baltimore went on board the Guinea man above mentioned and the circumstance of his buying these negroes that after some time this log Book was not much valued and was thrown about the rats got at it and eat part of it rest was destroyed and is not now in Existance or to be found being asked if this John Stephens was a man of good character answers that he was a very good man of very good character was a man of very good learning raised a large family and made a very good living and further this deponent says not sworn to before me a Justice of the peace for Prince Georges County at Upper Marlborough the day and year first above written

Saml Hepburn

  166 October Term 1802

Whereupon this cause standing ready for trial with the consent of the parties aforesaid by their attornies aforesaid thereupon for trying a new the issue aforesaid it is ordered by the Court here that twelve persons from the pannel of petit Jurors returned to the Court there by the several Sheriffs of the different Counties of the Western Shore be drawn by ballot and thereupon the twelve persons being so drawn by ballot and called come that is to say Thomas Hilleary Lyles Edward Beall Charles McCauley Thomas Beard Thomas T. Simmons Samuel Lane Smith Daniel Nead Robert Wilkinson Henry Leatherman Christopher Burkhart Henry C Neale and John Hannah whereupon certain of them to wit Thomas T. Simmons Daniel Nead and Christopher Burkhart are sworn upon that Jury and because the others of the said persons being according to the act of Assembly challenged by the parties to wit the said Thomas Hilleary Lyles Samuel Lane Smith and Henry C. Neale on the part of the petitioner and the said Edward Beall Charles McCauley Thomas Beard Robert Wilkinson Henry Leatherman and John Hannah on the part of the defendant other persons being drawn by ballot and called likewise come that is to say William Billingslea Benjamin White Jones Nicholas Griffith Samuel Richardson James Amos of James Ignatius Middleton Thomas Barber George Page and Abraham Albaugh whereupon certain of them to wit the said Benjamin White Jones Nicholas Griffith and Abraham Albaugh are likewise sworn upon that Jury and because of the said persons last called as aforesaid being according to the act of Assembly challenged by the parties aforesaid to wit the said Ignatius Middleton Thomas Barber and George Page on the part of the petitioner and the said William Billingslea Samuel Richarson & James Amos of James on the part of the Defendant other persons being drawn by ballot and called likewise come that is to say Mordecai   167. October Term 1802 Smith Aquila McComas Jacob Ridgely David Hoffman Alexander Crain and Thomas Woodward whereupon certain of them to wit the said Aquila McComas Jacob Ridgely and David Hoffman are likewise sworn upon that Jury and because the others of the said persons left called as aforesaid to wit the said Mordicai Smith Alexander Crane and Thomas Woodward being according to the act of Assembly challenged on the part of the petitioner other persons being drawn by ballot and called likewise come that is to say John Hesselius James Alexander Magruder and Peter Little whereupon the said John Hesselius is likewise sworn upon that Jury and because the others of the said persons last called as aforesaid being according to the act of assembly challenged by the parties aforesaid to wit the said James Alexander Magruder and the part of the petitioner and the said Peter Little on the part of the defendant other persons being drawn by ballot and called come likewise that is to say Zachariah Duvall and Francis Boucher Franklin and because the said persons last called as aforesaid being according to the act of assembly challenged by the parties aforesaid to wit the said Zachariah Duvall on the part of the defendant and the said Francis Boucher Franklin on the part of the petitioner the only person remaining on the pannel of Jurors so returned by the Sheriff aforesaid being drawn by ballot and called likewise come that is to say Samuel Tyler Junior whereupon the said Samuel Tyler Junior is likewise sworn upon that Jury and because a sufficient number of persons so returned by the Sheriff as aforesaid not being present to complete the said pannel therefore three persons of the by standers by the Sheriff of the County of Anne Arundel elected at the request of the said petitioner and the said defendant and by command of the Court here are added to the said pannel   168 October Term 1802. whose names to the pannel within written are annexed according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided one of which said persons so added anew being drawn by ballot and called come likewise that is to say Lewis Duvall and because the said Lewis Duvall being according to the act of Assembly challenged on the part of the defendant another of the persons so added anew being drawn by ballot and called likewise comes that is to say Lancelot Warfield and because the said Lancelot Warfield being according to the act of Assembly challenged on the part of the petitioner the other person so added anew being drawn by ballot and called likewise come that is to say Abner Craine whereupon the said Abner Craine is likewise sworn upon the Jury and the Jurors of the Jury whereof mention is within made being elected tried and sworn as aforesaid on their oath do say that the said Charles Mahoney is not a free man and of free condition as the said Charles Mahoney within by pleading hath alleged

Therefore it is considered by the Court here that the said Charles Mahoney take nothing by his petition aforesaid but return to the service of the said John Ashton there to remain until &ca and that the said John Ashton go thereof without day &ca Memorandum at the trial of this cause the Honourable Gabriel Duvall Esquire withdrew from the bench

Test John Gwinn Clk.