
    Barnett v. Sam.
    April, 1821.
    Slaves — Statute—Application.—The act of 1792 requiring persons removing to Virginia with slaves, to observe certain formalities, has no application to a citizen of Virginia, removing to another state with slaves; and returning with them to-Virginia, before the repeal of the law.
    This was a suit for freedom in forma pauperis, by Sam. The following case was made by a demurrer to ^evidence in the county court of Amherst. Sam was born in the county of Augusta, about the year 1788, the slave of Mary Teas, a native of that county, then residing there. Mary Teas, removed to North-Carolina about,1790, where she resided and Sam with her, three years. In 1793 she returned to> Virginia, bringing Sam with her; and not complying with the requisitions of the statute of Virginia of 1792. () She continued in Virginia until the year 1811; when she sold Sam to Barnett.
    A deposition taken in the cause, was objected to, because the commission was not directed to Justices of the Peace, nor did the persons taking it, describe themselves as such. The county court gave judgment for the plaintiff on the demurrer to evidence; the judgment was affirmed on appeal to the Superior court of law; and an appeal was taken to this court.
    The case was argued by Wickham for the appellant, and Leigh for the appellee.
    The case of Murray v. M’Carty, () was mentioned by a Judge; which on examination, seemed conclusive on the merits; and there was judgment against the pauper.
    
      
      For the proposition laid down in the headnote, the principal case is cited in Betty v. Horton, 5 Leigh 621.
    
    
      
      ) Rev. of 1792, p. 103.
    
    
      
      ) 2 Munf. 393.
    
   ROANE,' Judge.

The court is of opinion, that Mrs. Teas, under whom the appellant claims, having never renounced her character of citizen of Virginia; nor acquired that of a citizen of North-Carolina; is not embraced by the first part of the proviso of l 4, ch. 103, (pa. 186, of Pleas-ants’ edition of the laws,) under the decision of this court in the case of Murray v. M’Carty; so as to deprive a slave purchased by her in another state, after the passing-of that act and brought into this commonwealth, of the right of freedom, enuring to him under the 2d $ thereof: but the appellee in this case having been at the time of the commencement of this act, actually owned by the said Mrs. Teas, his right .to freedom is ^barred by that circumstance, under the provision as to citizens of the commonwealth, contained in the last part of the said proviso; and this a fortiori, as the said Mrs. Teas had owned the appellee as a slave in Virginia, and carried him with her into the state of ISTorth-Carolina.

Under this opinion against the appellee, on the merits, it is unnecessary, however plain, to inquire into the sufficiency of the depositions excepted to in the proceedings: but if that deposition ought to have been rejected, it shews more strongly, that the judgment In his favor is erroneous.

Both judgments are to be reversed and entered for the appellant. 
      
      BROOKE absent.
     