
    Samuel Scott v. Joseph Williams.
    From Davidson.
    In questions of slavery ov freedom, a presumption of slavery arises from a black complexion, but none from that of a mulatto.
    In questions of this kind, the amount of damages is within the discretion of the Jury, and where the Plaintiff’s mother, a free woman, had been indented to the Defendant’s father, and the Plaintiff gi. ven to the Defendant as a slave, a direction to. the Jury that they' might give substantial damages, was held to be proper.
    The Plaintiff declared in trespass for an assault and battery and false imprisonment, the object of the suit being to ascertain whether the Plaintiff', a negro held in slavery by the Defendant, was not, in truth, free. On the trial, the Plaintiff proved that he was the son of Je-mima, who was the daughter of Jane Scott, and the question was, whether Jane Scott was a free woman i Con-tradidory statements of her colour were given, but the Plaintiff introduced an indenture whereby Jemima was bound to the father of the Defendant, as a free girl of co-lour. The Plaintiff was given as a slave, by the Defendant’s father to him, and resided with, and served the Defendant from the time of the gift, to that of the trial.
    His Honor Judge Daniei, instructed the Jury, that the first question for them, was, whether Jane Scott was a free woman — and in ascertaining that fact, her colour might enter into their consideration. If she was of a black African complexion, they might presume from that fact, that she was a slave ; if she was of a yellow complexion, no presumption of slavery arose from her color. His Honor further informed the Jury, that if their verdict should he for the Plaintiff, they might, if they pleased, give him more than nominal damages.
    A verdict with substantial damages, was returned for the Plaintiff, and a rule for a new trial being discharged, the Defendant appealed.
    
      
      Gaston and Badger, for the Defendant,
    cited Gobu v. Gobu, [Taylor’s Hep. 164,) Pleasants, v. Pleasants, (2 Call’s Rep 348).
    
      Hogg, contra.
   Ham, Judge.

How far the charge of the Judge in this case will admit of verbal criticism, is not my province to enquire; but that it is plain and perspicuous, so as to be readily comprehended by the. Jury, I think there can be but little doubt. They-were told, that they might consider whether Jane Scott was of a black complexion. If she was, they might presume from that fact that she was a slave ; if she was of a yellow complexion, no presumption of slavery could arise from her color.~ This part of the charge has been fojund fault with in argument, because the Jury were not Instructed that they must presume that.Jane Scott was a slave, if she was of a black African complexion. The Judge, .to be sure, in more harsh, dictatorial terms, might have done so, but I think the difference would be verbal rather than substantial. When they were told, that no presumption could arise from a yellow complexion, they must have understood the Judge to mean, that a presumption of slavery must arise from a black one. I think there, is nothing solid in this objection. No doubt but that the attention of the Jury was principally directed to the evidence offered, as to the fact of slavery or freedom j and to that evidence, the next objection made to the Judge’s charge, makes it necessary to advert. It is argued, that the damages ought to be nominal; that it was an action brought to decide a mere question of property between innocent persons..' This may be the case ; but the fact is, that the mother of the Plaintiff was indented for a term of years, as a free girl, to the father of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was put into the possession of the Defendant by the father. It is true, the indentures to Joseph Williams, sen. were not conclusive that Jemima was a free person . },u(- ¡t wag a circumstance in evidence to the Jury, an<^ as under the charge of the Court, have found more than nominal damages, having a discretion to do so, under the circumstances of the case, I think it improper to grant a new trial.

Per Curiam. — Judgment affirmed.  