
    Commonwealth v. Pleasant.
    December, 1840.
    Criminal Law — Free Negro Remaining in Commonwealth — Presentment—Information.—A slave horn in .this state, having been removed therefrom, and in. 1798 'brought hack thereto, brings a suit in 1828 to recover her freedom, to which, by the judgment of the court of appeals rendered in 1833, she is held entitled, because imported in contravention of the statute of 1792, 1 Old Rev. Code, ch. 108, § 2. In 1840, a presentment is made against her, as a person emancipated since the first day of May 1806, and unlawfully remaining in the commonwealth more than twelve months after her title to freedom had accrued and after she had attained the age of twenty-one years: Held, no information ought to be ordered to be filed upon the presentment.
    Free Negro — Right to Remain in Commonwealth— Quere. — Whether a person of colour so obtaining freedom is at liberty to remain in the commonwealth ?
    Case adjourned from the circuit superior court of Kanawha county.
    On the 19th of May 1840, the grand jury impanneled in the said circuit superior court made a presentment to the following effect: “We present Pleasant, a free negro woman, who has been emancipated within this commonwealth since the first day of May 1806, for unlawfully remaining in the county of Kanawha and commonwealth ^aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said circuit court, from the time of her said emancipation until the day of the finding of this presentment, being a period of more than twelve months after her title to freedom had accrued, and after she had attained the age of twenty-one years, without having obtained leave so to do according to law, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided,” &c. It was thereupon ordered that the defendant be summoned to shew cause, at the ensuing term, why an information should not be filed against her upon the presentment. The summons was issued and duly executed.
    'At the October term 1840, the attorney for the commonwealth and the defendant agreed that the said defendant is the same negro woman Pleasant who united with Betty and others in a suit for freedom against Horton and others, in the superior court of Kanawha, whence the cause was carried to the court of appeals. They likewise agreed “the record in said case in the superior court,” and the judgment of the court of appeals thereon; and upon the adjournment of the case to this court, they further agreed, that in making up the record of the case adjourned, the clerk might copy only the special verdict which was found in the suit for freedom, and the judgment of the court of appeals thereon, and that the residue of that record might be omitted.
    Bjr the said special verdict it was found, that E). G. Blake, who was born in the state of Massachusetts, removed, when a young man, to the county of Southampton in Virginia, married there, and received with his wife two slaves, the plaintiffs Betty and Pleasant. That some time after his marriage, and in the year 1797, he left Virginia, taking with him his wife and child, and the plaintiffs Betty and Pleasant, then- small girls, and arrived at Boston in July 1797. That having spent about three months in visiting his friends and relations, he rented a house in Boston in which his family resided, ’''opened a store under the firm of É. G. Blake & Co. and stated that it was his intention to spend the rest of his days there. That he continued to reside and carry on business in Boston until July or August 1798, when his business not being prosperous, and his wife being in bad health, he disclosed his intention of returning to Virginia; and, closing his business, he left Boston for Virginia in September 1798, taking with him his wife and family, and the plaintiffs Betty and Pleasant, who had remained with him and in his service during his continuance in Massachusetts. In addition to these facts found by the special verdict, the parties to the suit for freedom agreed that the plaintiffs Betty and Pleasant were born slaves in the commonwealth of Virginia.
   The judgment of the court of appeals was rendered on the 11th of July 1833. That court held, that the law upon the special verdict was for the plaintiffs ; and, reversing with costs the judgment of the circuit court of Kanawha (which was in favour of the defendants), gave judgment that the plaintiffs are free, and that they recover from the defendants their damages assessed by the jury, together with their costs expended in the circuit court.

It appears by the record of the said suit for freedom (though not by the special verdict, or the judgment of the court of appeals) that the suit was instituted in the year 1828. And it appears by the opinions of the judges of the court of appeals (see them in the report of the case, under the name of Betty and others v. Horton, S Leigh 61S, 626,) that the decision of that court proceeded on the ground that the plaintiffs, Betty and Pleasant, had been imported into this commonwealth in 1798 in violation of the statute of 1792, 1 Old Rev. Code, ch. 103, $ 2, Pleasants’s edi. p. 186, which enacts, that “slaves which shall hereafter be brought into this commonwealth, and kept therein one whole year together, or so long at different times as shall amount to one year, shall be free.”

"With the consent of the defendant, the circuit court adjourned to the general court the following questions: “Upon the facts agreed, is the defendant at liberty to remain in the commonwealth? and should an information be awarded against her?”

The response of the general court was as follows:

“This court is unanimously of opinion, and doth decide, 1. That no information ought to be ordered to be filed in this case. 2. That it is unnecessary, and would be improper, to answer the other question adjourned, as it does not arise in the cause.”  