
    [Pittsburg,
    September 11, 1824.]
    The COMMONWEALTH against BARKER.
    Where the registry of a negro child under thhe act of 29th of March, 1788, does not state the occupation of the master, parol proof may be given, that he had no occupation at the time of registry. But, if the evidence leave that fact in doubt, the registry is not good.
    This was a habeas corpus to produce the body of Frank, a mulatto boy, whom the defendant, Barker, claimed as his servant till the age of twenty-eight years, being the son of his slave Milla, duly registered, &e.
    The boy was registered on the 9th of April, 1812, in these words: «To the clerk of the peace of Allegheny county,
    
      ilAbner Barker, of the borough of Pittsburgh, returns to the said clerk a male mulatto child, called Frank, born on or about the 12th day of November, 1811, of a negro woman, called Milla, the property of the said Barker, and liable to serve until the age of twenty-eight years.”
    On the argument, the following points were made.
    1. That it did not appear by the return, that Frank had been registered within six months after his birth.
    2. That his age was not stated with sufficient certainty.
    3. That the occupation or profession of the claimant was not stated in the return, as required by the act of 29th of March, 1788,
    On this point the court received evidence on the the part of the boy, to prove that the defendant was a merchant or manufacturer, and on the part of the latter, to prove, that he was of no occupation.
    4. That Milla, the mother of Frank, having been born on the 18th of April, 1789, one year after the passage of the act of 1788, her offspring was free; that act referring only to those who were then slaves, and their children.
    These points were argued by Wilkins, for the boy,
    who referred to the act of 29th of March, 1788, 2 Sm. L. 444. Jesse v. Craig, 1 Berg. &• Rawls, 23. Essex v, M‘Cv.lloch, 1 8m. L. 
      497. Commonwealth v. Greason, 4 Serg. $r Rawle, 426. Wilson v. Belinda, 3 Set'g. <§•' Rawle, 396.
    
      Ross, for the claimant,
    cited Cook v. Neaff, 3 Yeates, 261. Commonwealth v. Rlane, 4 Binn. 186. 1 Dali. 169.
   By tre Court.

There is one point of great importance, on which the court intimates no opinion, viz: whether the child of a person, born since the act of 1788, is bound to serve until the age of twenty-eight. But there is another point decisive of this case. The occupation of the master is not' mentioned in the register. Bdt inasmuch as it would be impossible to mention the occupation of a man'who has no occupation, We have admitted parol evidence for the .purpose of proving that Mr. Barker had no occupation at the time of entering this boy. On this subject it is incumbent on the master to remove all doubt, and we cannot say that the evidence has been sufficient for that purpose. We think it very doubtful from the evidence, whether Mr. Barker was not a partner of a manufacturing company at the date of this resister. For that reason we are of opinion, that the register is not according to law, and Frank is entitled to his discharge.

Prisoner discharged.  