
    GENERAL COURT, (EASTERN SHORE,)
    SEPTEMBER TERM, 1786.
    Negroes Peter and others against John Elliott’s Executors.
    THIS was a petition for freedom, founded on a deed of manumission, executed by the defendants’ testator, bearing date on the 23d of October, 1784, and which “ it was agreed and admitted, was executed, sealed and delivered, by the said testator, in his last sickness, of which said last sickness he died.” By the said deed of manumission, the several negro-slaves, the petitioners, specially named and designated by their ages, were to have their liberty, freedom and manumission on the ensuing 25th of December. The deed was executed in the presence of two witnesses, and acknowledged before a justice of the peace of the county in which the testator resided, and recorded in the records of that county, on the 28th October, 1784. Several depositions proved, that the said deed of manumission was executed by the testator in his last sickness of which he died, on the 8th November, 1784. That it was the testator’s opinion for the last (ive years of his life, that his negroes ought to be set free, but he declined doing it because it was against the interest of the public. That the mind of the testator was perfectly composed at the time of the execution of the deed. That he had been in a low wasting con sump live state, for two months before he executed the said deed. That he had not been a hearty man for several years. That his complaint, when he executed the deed, was not a new complaint, but only an increase of his old disorder. That a fortnight before he executed the deed, he said if all the negroes could be sent away, he would very cheerfully set his own free, but thought it could not be clone without prejudicing the public. When he sent for the magistrate, he informed him he wanted to manumit his slaves, and had sent for him to have it done. The magistrate observed to him, that it was a matter of consequence and deserved consideration, and asked the testator if he had considered it well. He informed the magistrate he had, gave him a list of the negroes, and the deed was drawn and approved of by the testator. That upon application being made to Mr. Erickson, to witness the deed, he at first refused, saying that he could not think Mr. Elliott to be in his senses, as he had expressed great abhorrence to the measure a few days before, and conceived it to be highly injurious to the country. Upon this being communicated to Elliott, he in a fretful manner answered, that such changes could be done in an instant, signifying, that it was an act of divine providence. That his conscience was extremely uneasy, and that he could not rest until he had set his negroes free. That in the opinion of the magistrate, Mr. Elliott, from his conduct and conversation, appeared to be perfectly in his senses at the time of the execution of the deed, and did not discover any symptoms of a speedy death. It was also proved, that the testator executed his will on the same day he executed the deed of manumission, but after he had executed the deed.
    The deed of manumission was objected to, as being contrary to the act of assembly of June, 1752, c. 1. s. 3. by which it is enacted, u That it shall not be lawful for any person or persons, within this province, by any verbal order, or by his, her or their last will and testament, or by any other instrument pf writing, in' his, her or their last sickness, whereof he, slie or they shall die, to give or grant freedom to any slave or slaves. And |f any person or persons, after the time aforesaid, shall by any verbal order, or by his, her or their last will and testament, or by any other writing or instrument in his, her or their last sickness whereof he, she or they shall die, give freedom to any slave or slaves, such order, will, or other writing, shall be void and of no effect, so far as relates to such freedom or manumission only,”
    
      
       This act has been repealed.
    
   The Court

dismissed the petition, being of opinion that the petitioners were not entitled to their freedom.

The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, which Court, at November term, 1793, affirmed the judgment of the General Court,  