
    Mathew Coleman ads. The Guardian of a free Negro named Ben.
    
      Columbia,
    1803.
    An exempiifi-Judgment of l “"V1 iu ViXr cient t0 esta-Wish the freedom of a negro in this This court is not to examine into the regularities of proceedings of a sister state although they may at first appear to be irregular; hut are bound to presume they are’ve. guiar and proper, agreeable to the laws of- the state from -whence they are transmitted.
    Two years time enough to procure testimony from the state of Virginia, or even 'll if due diligence had been used fpr that purpose. less,
    MOTION for a new trial, in a case tried in Camden, and verdict for plaintiff.
    This case was tried before Mr. Justice Johnson, at Camden, in the District of Kershaw, in order to trv the free- . , , r. J „ dom. oi the plaintiff s ward, a negro named Ben. On the trial, a record of a judgment from the state of Virginia was produced, by which it appeared that the negro Ben had es-jpls rjg[,t to h¡s freedom in that state. To this record an exception was taken on the ground of irregularity apparent on the face of it, because it appeared that the suit had originated in a county court, and it did not state that any judgment had ever been given in the case by that court. But that a judgment had been given by a superior court,, which had not the original cognisance of the cause, which, it was contended, was such a repugnancy on the face of the record itself, as destroyed it. But the presiding Judge overruled the exception, on the ground that the laws of the state of Virginia permitted causes to originate in the inferior county courts, and afterwards to be taken up by a cer-tiorari or other legal process to the superior courts, for trial and final determination.
    Two other exceptions were then taken; first, as to the identity of the negro ; and, secondly, because the defendant was hurried into a trial before he could get his witnesses to attend from Virgmta.
    
    One or two witnesses were then examined, who proved, that to the best of their knowledge and belief, they had seen this negro in Virginia; that he had there passed for a free man; and that they believed him to be the identical negro, which was said to be free in Virginia; upon this evidence the jury found for the plaintiff.
    The present was, therefore, a motion for a new trial, on the ground of mistake in the Judge on the law, and also for defect of evidence to the jury, and also upon the other ground that the defendant was hurried into a trial before he could procure his testimony from Virginia, to shew his right of property in the negro in question, and that he was not the negro named in this record.
   After hearing arguments, the court was against the new trial; that it was not for the Judges of one state to sit in judgment to determine on the regularities or irregularities ■of the judgments and proceedings of the courts of justice in a sister state, and although they had not the laws of Vir-gitiia before them, yet it was fair and regular to presume that the record and judgment were agreeable to the laws and the usual course of proceedings in that state; and as such, they were bound to give due faith and credit to them, and th& more especially as the exemplification of the judgment appears to be in due form, agreeable to the act of congress.

As to the second objection, respecting the identity of the negro Ben, that was a matter of fact for the jury, of which they were the constitutional judges.

And as to the last ground, that of being prematurely hurried on to a trial; from the inspection of the proceedings in this case, it appears, that the cause had been depending nearly two years, which surely was more than sufficient time for the defendant to procure his testimony from the state of Virginia, if he had used due diligence.

Rule for new trial discharged.

All the Judges present*  