
    Isaac v. Johnson.
    Decided, February 22, 1816,
    a. Equitable Relief — Suit for Freedom. — Relief given In equity, in a pauper’s suit for freedom,  by awarding a new trial at law, and, a (verdict being certified,) decreeing for the plaintiff: upon a bill stating, that, in the previous proceedings, ho had not been permitted to obtain his testimony; and on proof now produced in support of his right: notwithstanding the defendant pleaded in bar to such relief, a former verdict and judgment, by which the plaintiff was declared to be a slave, and a decree of another court of chancery dismissing a similar bill, exhibited on his behalf; from which judgment and decree he had not appealed.
    By permission of the county court of Campbell, (on a petition filed,) a suit at law, in forma pauperis, was instituted November 13th, 1797, in behalf of Isaac, a negro man, claiming freedom, against Peter Corbell, who held him in slavery. A declaration was filed in the usual form of trespass, assault and battery, and false imprisonment: — the •defendant pleaded, “that the plaintiff was a slave, and had not a right to sue for his freedom —the defendant replied, “he was a freeman by the laws of the land, and had a right to sue, &c. whereupon, a jury was impanelled, but, not agreeing on a verdict, was discharged. At a subsequent term, viz. on the 14th of May, 1799, another jury found a verdict for the defendant, that the plaintiff was a slave ; and, a motion for a new trial being overruled by the court, judgment was entered accordingly.
    Shortly after this, Thomas Johnson having bought him from Peter Corbell, Isaac preferred another petition to the Hustings *court of Bynchburg, for permission to bring a suit against Johnson, to fry his right to freedom a second time; which suit was accordingly instituted, and afterwards removed by certiorari to the superior court of law for the county of Camp bell. Being advised by his counsel that the former judgment might be pleaded in bar against him, he also filed a bill in the superior court of chancery for the Richmond district, setting forth sundry grounds for relief in equity, and praying that the verdict and judgment in Corbell’s favour, might be set aside, or that Johnson be restrained from using them as evidence in the action pending at law. Chancellor Taylor granted an injunction for that purpose, but, on the 1st of May 1810, dissolved it, and, the cause being heard “on the bill, answer and exhibits,” on the 6th of June, 1811, dismissed the bill with •costs. A nonsuit was soon after suffered in the suit at law ; and, on the 9th of June, 1812, another suit in chancery was brought, on Isaac’s behalf in the county court of Campbell, against Johnson and Corbell; the bill praying that an injunction be awarded inhibiting Johnson from conveyiúg or sending the complainant away, &c. ; that a new trial be granted him, and the verdict be directed to be certified to the chancery side of the court ; and for such other relief as might be deemed right and equitable.
    The grounds of equity, set forth in this bill, were, in substance, that, in both the suits at law, and also in that in the superior court of chancery, the plaintiff being poor and ignorant, and under restraint of those who held him in slavery, had not been permitted, and was not able to.procure the proper testimony in support of his right; that, on the first trial of the suit against Corbell, Johnson himself was a material witness in favour of the plaintiff, but failed to attend at the last trial, when (the plaintiff’s counsel having moved for a continuance, which the court refused,) the verdict was found against him ; after which, Johnson bought him of Corbell, with full knowledge of all the circumstances; that, in fact, he had been unlawfully imported from South-Carolina, and kept in this state more than twelve months in violation of the act of Assembly ; whereby his right to freedom had accrued ; and that all this could be fully proved, if a fair opportunity were allowed him to take the necessary depositions. The county court granted the injunction prayed for.
    ^Johnson, by his answer, denied generally, these allegations, and also pleaded, in bar of the plaintiff’s claim, the verdict and judgment in the suit between him and Corbell, and the chancellor’s decree dismissing his former bill of injunction.
    The defendant, Corbell,
    not appearing, an order of publication was entered, and the bill regularly taken for confessed, as to him.
    The plaintiff replied generally,
    to Johnson’s answer and plea, and proceeded to take depositions, by which the allegations in his bill were fully supported, so far as respected his right to freedom, and Johnson’s knowledge of that right when he bought him. It was also proved, that Johnson had given important testimony in Isaac’s favour at the first trial of the suit against Corbell, but failed to appear at the second trial; and that a motion for a continuance was made by the plaintiff’s counsel, but overruled by the court.
    On the 14th of February, 1814, a motion to dissolve the injunction was overruled, and the court awarded a new trial at law, the verdict to be certified, &c. In March, 1815, a jury was sworn at the bar of the same court, and found a verdict, “that the pauper, Isaac, is not a slave, but a freeman,” which was ordered to be certified to the chancery side of the court. The 6th of May following, it was decreed and ordered, “that the original verdict referred to in the bill be set aside; that the pauper Isaac recover his freedom; and that the injunction in this cause be made perpetual.”
    . Upon an appeal to the superior court of chancery, holden at Bynchburg, this decree was reversed, and the bill dismissed; whereupon Isaac appealed to this court.
    Wickham for the appellant.
    No counsel appeared for the appellee.
    
      
       Tlie principal case is cited in Talbert v. Jenny, 6 Rand. 162.
    
    
      
       Note. See in Hudgins v. Wrights, 1 H. & M. 134, pl. 3, another example of the favour shewn by the court to paupers suing for freedom. — Note in Original Edition.
    
   February 22d, 1816, the president pronounced the court’s opinion, that the decree of the superior court of chancery be reversed, and that of the county court affirmed.  