
    Shorter vs. Boswell.
    In a petition finf* freedom, the following part ofVlhe deposition of a witness was held to be competent evidence — —' ‘and always understood she, (the ancestor of the petitioner^ came fi ora K JN, but did not k now it of lus own knowledge, and heard, that she went bv the name of P s.” As also this part of the tie* position ofanother witness. “That lus mother, in her life-time, to'd huu a woman named P came to the familv sif J L Iren the faiui'y of Ji N.” J
    
    A record book o. Charles eomi'y court, containing the certificate and affidavit of a priest in 1702 that ho hid, m 1081, in Saint Manfj county, married a negro min named L i?, to a white woman named E S both s Tvants of V/ an affidavit of a person who was present at the marriage provine the same, as also the issue by the ma T\a#e, and an entry from the parish register of the fatter counzy, statin# that, the anove were therein recorded in 1702, and ¡ V whale recorded in the above record book in 1703, the entry thereof vi the record book, (-here bein# proof of the loss of the onehmls and or the parish remoter) was offered in evidence, in a petition for tre“dom. by a person elauniiv as a descendant iro;n E S to prove the existence of a free white worrian named E S', in the familv o i'll' iiQ her ¿ñamo# and the issue by that imu «ago, and was hti-d to be admiwiMe evidence. *
    Appeal from Charles County Court. The appellant exhibited to that court her petition for freedom against the ■appellee.
    1. At the trial the petitioner offered to read in evidence io the jury, the deposition of Mary Lancaster, taken by consent of the partieá, on the 24th of August J 80S; wherein, to theirs/ interrogatory propounded to the witness, viz. “Did you know Martha, or Pall, who formerly belonged to captain John Lancaster, and from whom did he get Patti” she answered, “that she knew Fail, and always tfnderstood she came from Raphael Neale, but did dot know it of her own knowledge, and heard that she went by the name of Palt Shorter." The defendant objected to the words s<itnd always understood that she came from Raphael Neale, but did not know it of her own knowledge, and heard that she went by the name of Palt Shorter," as not being competent evideíicé’, and the county court sustained the objection, and refused to let that part of the deposition be read to the jury. The petitioner excepted. x 2. The petitioner then offered and gafe' in evidence,by Thomas Lancaster, that his mother, diary Lancaster, was dead. And also offered to prove by the same witness, “that his mother, in her life-time, told him that it was generally reported# and she always understood, that a woman named Patti or Martha, came to the family of John Lancaster from the family of Raphael Neale, óf Saini•Mary's couhty.” But the defendant objected to' it,- as incompetent and inadtbissible evidence; and the county court were of opinion that the same was not competent or admissible evidence, and refused to let it go to the jury. The petitioner excepted.
    S. The petitioner then offered and gave in evidence, that she was the daughter of a woman named Belly, who was-the daughter of a woman named Sarah, who was the daughter of a woman named Belly, who was the daughter of a woman named Martha, or Patti who was" held in servitude by John Lancaster, of Charles county, and that Patt was. called Patt Shorter, and had two sisters, namely Mary, who belonged to Edward Neale, and Jane, who belonged to Roswell Neale, and that Edward and Roswell Neale were the sons of Anthony Neale, of Saint Mary's county, who died about the year lf23. The petitioner also gave in evidence, that John Lancaster married Elizabeth, the daughter of Raphael Neale, who was also the son of Anthony Neale, and that Martha, or Patt, was given to John Lancaster by Raphael Neale, that John Lancaster gave Sarah, above named, to Henry Bigges, of Charles county, deceased, who intermarried with Henrietta, the daughter1 of John Lancaster', that Dice's sold Betty, the daughter of Sarah, to the defendant, Boswell', and that the petition - er was born of Betty, after the sale of her mother to the defendant. The petitioner then produced one of the record books of Charles county court, and offered to read in evi» áértcé ah entry made in the sáid record, in folids 22S and 220, to prove the existéiice of a ficé white woman named Elizabeth Shorter, in the family of a certain William Roswell, of S(tint-Mary's county, and that she married a black man named Little Robin, the servant of Roswéíí, and had by him three daughters, namely Mary, Jane ¿nd Martha* and that Elizabeth Shorter, and Her husband, Were given by Roswell to Anthony Neale, and that Neals inamed the daughter of Roswell. The entry was as follows:
    “At the request of Mr. Anthony Neah, the following certificate and deposition were recorded: Maryland, sS. Saint-Mary's county. These are to certify, that in the year 1681* or near about that time, I Nicholas Geulic?ct Priest, the subscriber hereof, did join together in the holy estate of matrimony, according to the then law, a negro man named, to the best of niy remembrance, Little Robin, to a white woman, whose name was Elizabeth Shorter, Which couple all that time were both servants unto Mr. William Roswell, deceased, and was after, as I am informed, disposed of by the said Roswell unto Mr. Anthony Neale of Charles county. Certified under my hand, this 1 aclr day of dime, mintió ¿¿02.
    4 '■Nicholas GeulichN
    
    “Memorandum. The day and year above, came before toe, Mr. Geulick, and made oath upon the Holy Evangelist, that the above affidavit is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
    
      “Jurat coroM me$
    
    ‘ ‘•Joshua GuibertN
    
    “Maryland, ss. St. Maty's county. Emma RosWdi, widow, aged seventy years, or thereabouts, being sWore Upon the Holy Evangelist, declareth upon her oath, that she the said deponent was present at the • marriage of the abovesaid couple, and that the ceremony was performed, by the abovesaid Mr. Nicholas Geulick, Priest, and that the negro man’s name was Little Robin, and the while woman’s name Elizabeth Shorter; and that they were» at the time of their being married, both servants unte ibis deponent’s husband, William Roswell, deceased^ ami 'by him given and made over and delivered up unto .An* thony Neale, upon marriage1 of the said Neale with Hit* sabeth, the daughter of said Roswell, &isd have remained! in the said Neale’s service ever since; and that after the marriage of the said negro man and white woman, the said white woman had three mulatto girl children, named Mary, Jane and Martha, who are now living to the best of this deponent’s knowledge.
    “This 15th day of June Anno 1702. Jurat coram me.
    
    
      “Joshua Guihert.”
    
    
      Maryland, St. Mary’s county, ss. (King and Queen parish,] June 6, 1702. Then recorded upon the record Jrook of the ■ abovesaid parish, the two within affidavits, one of Mr, Nicholas Gueliek, Priest, the other of Mrs, Emma Roswell. This being a true copy as now given under my hand the day and date above, by me,
    
      iiWm. Ilavetl, Clk. Vestry.”
    “Entered on the records of Charles county, June the 25th,,1703.” ¡[See 3 Ilarr. %■ MiHen. 239.]
    The petitioner further gave evidence, that the paper in . the record mentioned to be recorded, was not to be found among the papers remaining in the clerk’s office of the county; and that the parish registers of King and Queen parish, in Saint-Mary’s county, prior to the year 1744, have been lost or destroyed. The defendant objected to the admissibility of the entry on the record, as evidence; and the county court sustained the objection. The petitioner excepted. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant; and the petitioner appealed te this court.
    The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. Buoiianan, and Nicholson, J. by
    
      T. Buchanan, for the Appellant;
    and by
    
      Chapman, for the Appellee.
   The Court

dissented from the opinions expressed by the court below, in all of the bills of exceptions.

judgment reversed, and procedendo awarded. 
      
      
        CaJ In the case of Mima Queen, and Child, vs. Hepburn, 7 Cranch, 290, the Supreme Court of the United. States decided, that hearsay evidence is incompetent to establish any specific fact, Which is in its nature susceptible of being proved by witnesses who speak from their own knowledge;' ami that claims to freedom in Maryland are not exempt from that general rule.
     