
    WASHINGTON COUNTY.
    February Term, 1799.
    
    Lucy, a Negro woman, v. Reasin Pumfrey.
    
      1St. L. 838. 2 St. L. 55.
    
      LUCY brought a writ de homine replegiando against the defendant, who held her as a slave. It was admitted, that on or before 1st March, 1780, and between that, and on and after 1st January, 1786, Reasin Pumfrey was an inhabitant of that part of the county of Westmoreland, which, in 1781, was erected into the county of Washington, of this state ; and, during the whole of that time, held Lucy with him, as a slave ; and since that time, and till the suing out of this writ, has held her, as a slave, in Virginia ; and that, after 13th April, 1782, and before 1st January, 1783, Reasin Pumfrey registered, with the clerk of the sessions of Washington county, the following Negro slaves, to wit, Rachel, a female, aged 28 years ; Ruth, a female, aged 13 years ; Ben, a male, aged 10 years ; Dinah, a female, aged 8 years ; Lot, a male, aged 4 years ; and Kate, a female, aged 6 months.
    
      Simonson, for the defendant,
    offered parole testimony, that, at the time of the registration, Pumfrey had but fix slaves ; that among them was Lucy the plaintiff ; that she is the slave registered by the name of Ruth ; and that she was never known by the name of Ruth.
    
    Campbell, for the plaintiff,
    objected to the admission of this testimony. It would defeat the purposes of identifying, by the registry, those slaves, who, after 1st November, 1780, or 1st January, 1783, should be held as slaves; and would reduce the whole system to the evanescent, precarious, and delusive test of parole evidence ; the memory or faith of witnesses to distant transactions. It would be to admit presumption in favour of slavery, and against freedom and the record. The presumption ought to be otherwise, that, the name of the plaintiff not appearing on the record, she has never been recorded, and is, therefore, free.
    
      Simonson. I admit that this act ought to be construed liberally in favour of freedom, and strictly against property. But it must be so construed, as to effect the intention of the legislature, and produce the least mischief. It is sufficient, if we can establish, that the plaintiff was, at the time mentioned by the law, and yet is, the slave of Reasin Pumfrey, and the same person registered by the name Ruth. The description of Ruth, as to age, sex, and colour corresponds with the sex, colour, and age at that time of Lucy.
    
   President.

The question may be of considerable importance, and deserve further discussion ; I hope, therefore, the party against whom our opinion is will put it in a way of being examined on a writ of Error. And I am glad, for this reason, that our opinion happens to be against the party best able to do this.

We do not admit the testimony. It would reduce that certainty of a registry, intended by the law, to a state of absolute uncertainty. An error in the christian name is essential, unless corrected by another description annexed, as wife, bishop, earl, &c. Fraud and perjury Would be let in, to defeat the purposes of the law, and make slaves of Negroes really free. The fault lies with the master, and he must bear the consequences.

Simonson tendered a bill of exceptions.

There was a verdict for the plaintiff.  