
    [Chambersburg,
    Friday, October 4, 1811.]
    *The Commonwealth against Blaine.
    The registry of a negro child under the fourth section of the act of 29th March 1788, maybe explained by parol evidence, if it contains a mistake apparent upon the face of it.
    Entry on the 26th June 1807, of the name, &c., of a negro child born on the 2d January 1808- Registry not void, but parol evidence admitted to show that the child was born on the 2d January 1807, and therefore the registry was made within six months after his birth, agreeably to the act.
    To a habeas corpus to the defendant, to bring before the court the body of a negro named John, she made the following return:
    “ In obedience to the command of this writ I do return to this honorable court, that I have the body of negro John, the person within named, now before the court in safe and secure custody; and that the cause of his detainer is, that be is my servant to the age of twenty-eight years, duly registered according to the several acts of assembly for the gradual abolition of slavery, and that he is not yet arrived to the age of twenty-eight years. So answers Sarah E. Blaine.
    By the fourth section of the act of 29th March 1788, 2 St. Laws 586, “all persons who now are, or hereafter shall be possessed of any child or children, born after the first day of March one thousand seven hundred and eighty, who would by the said act be liable to serve till the age of twenty-eight years, shall, on or before the first day of April one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine, or within six months
    
    
      
      next after the birth of any such child, deliver or cause to be delivered in writing, to the clerk of the peace of the county, or the clerk of the court of record of the city of Philadelphia, in which they shall respectively inhabit, the name, surname, and occupation or profession of such possessor, and of the county, township, district, or ward, in which they reside, and also the age (to the best of his or her knowledge) name and sex of every such child or children, under the pain and penalty of forfeiting and losing all right and title to every such child and children, and of him, her or them immediately becoming free; which said return or account in writing, shall be verified by the oath or affirmation of the party, 'd'hich the said clerks are hereby respectively authorized and required to administer; and the said clerks shall make and preserve records thereof, copies and extracts of which shall be good evidence in all ^courts of justice, when certified under their hands and seals of office.”
    The registry of the negro was in the following terms:
    “198.
    Sarah E. Blaine,
    26th June, 1807,
    of the township of Middleton in the county of Cumberland, widow, spinster, returns and enters one male negro child named John, born on the second day of January in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eight.”
    The return in writing, and the affidavit, were as follows: “John a male negro child born on the second day of January one thousand eight hundred and eight, of negro woman Bachael the property of Sarah Eliza Blaine of Middleton township in the county of Cumberland, widow, spinster.”
    “Cumberland county to wit: Sarah E. Blaine being sworn, deposeth and saith that the above return of a male negro child John,'is just and true, and desires the same may be. entered of record.”
    Sworn and subscribed 26th June 1807, before "William Levis.
    Sabah E. Blaine.
    
      Gibson on behalf of the negro,
    contended that he was free, in consequence of his void registry; that the act intended to furnish evidence by the record of the time of bis freedom, and that inasmuch as the registry was unintelligible and impossible, by the fault of the owner, it wa9 the same as no registry. The most strict conformity with the act should be required in favor of liberty.
    
      
      Duncan contra,
    answered that the registry might be explained. The date of the child’s birth was impossible, as it was of a time subsequent to the entry ; it might therefore be explained by parol evidence. He cited Small v. Cole, 2 Bur. 1159, and offered to prove that the child was born on the 2d Januai-y 1807, and therefore recoi'ded in due time.
    
      Gibson objected to parol testimony of that fact;
    but if the Coui’t should think it admissible, he agi’eed that the bii’th ^16 °hild was on the day which had been mentioued by Duncan.
    
   Tilghman C. J.

Mrs. Blaine has returned to the habeas corpus in this case, that she detains negro John, as a servant until the age of twenty-eight years. It appears that she registered him in pursuance of the act of 29th March 1788 ; but it is contended on the part of the negro, that the registry was illegal and void, and consequently he is entitled to immediate freedom. The act directs, that an entry shall be made in the book of the clerk of the peace of the county in which the master or mistress lives, within six months next after the birth of the child, in which entry shall be mentioned, the age, name and sex of the child, with several other particulars mentioned in the act, under the penalty of forfeiting all right and title to such child, who in case of omission of the entry for six months, Bhall immediately become free. The registry has been produced, and on the face of it there is an impossibility. The entry was made on the 26th June 1807, and the child is said to have been born on the 2d January 1808. It is evident that there is a mistake, either of the mistress in the age of the child, or of the clerk in the date of the entry. Mrs. Blaine offers to prove, and it is admitted, that the truth is, that negro John w’as born 2d January 1807, so that the entry was made within six months from his birth. The falsehood could not have been introduced with a fraudulent intent, because the error appeared on the face of the entry, which carried with it its own conviction. But it does not follow that it is void. It is a case which may be explained by parol evidence. The act requires that the entry shall be verified by the oath of the person who makes it, who is to swear that the facts are true to the best of his knowledge. There cannot be a reasonable doubt of Mrs. Blaine’s having sworn to the best of her knowledge, but the wi’iting was so drawn as to contain an error of date, The servant is not bound by the entry, but may show the truth, and the truth is now admitted. It is unnecessary to give an opinion, how the law would be, if the owner of a servant should voluntarily and fraudulently misrepresent his age. In the present case, the words of the law have been complied with, the entry was made within six months from *the birth, and the mistress swore to the best of her knowledge at the moment she made the oath, because at that moment she supposed that the true age was inserted in her affidavit. I am of opinion, that the registry is not void, and that Mrs. Blaine is entitled to hold negro John as her servant, from the real time of his birth, till the age of twenty-eight years.

Yeates, J. was of the same opinion.

Brackenridge J. was of the same opinion.

Judgment that the negro be remanded to the custody of his mistress.

[Criticised in 8 S. & R. 161 ; but cited with approval in 10 S. & R. 250 and 1 H. 187.  