
    Walls vs. Hemsley, et al.
    
    untie ««giiSm™ ’0,¶“ ;;»• Uv.-a»,» vas a iivt' woman, u no® ad-ni.sible in evi«
    <>f «pt™ sme<* mg the mother of a she^ w a mWbielnevidenco
    Ah’isai. from Queen Jlnne’s County Court. This was a petition for freedom, preferred by the appellees against the appellant. The general issue was pleaded. •* 1 ° 1
    1. At the trial the petitioners proved by G. Griffin, some time before the surrender of York Town to the J1 menean army, the witness had gone to James lliver, with one captain J. Sweat; that he was afterwards transferred to the Baltimore (Jalley, and afier the surrender of the British tie auain went on board captain Sweat’s vessel and went into York River. That about two or three weeks after the said surrender, he left York Town; that before he left there he had been on shore at Gosport, where he had seen negro Suck, the mother of Benny, one of the petiti-iiners, selling cakes and beer without control; and that lie saw her repeatedly afterwards selling cakes and beer at the shore of the river at York Town, until the day before captain Sweat sailed, when Suck was brought on board his vessel by five or six men at ab mt 9 o’clock at night, and purchased by Sweat. That another black woman was brought on board captain Sweat’s vessel by the same person-., who was released and set on shore in consequence of her cries and screams. That Sweat had informed Suck that he would make her his wife;- That Suck had said,durIng her passage to Maryland, that she was sorry she had come away, as she was free in Virginia, and had a white husband there On cross examination, the fitness was asked if he had heard the story oí kidnapping mentioned at any period since he came to Maryland, or whether at any time since he had mentioned it? To which he answered, he did not recollect to have mentioned it, but had heard it talked of. The witness also proved, that one B. Sweat returned to Maryland with captain Sweat and himself, anti that both captain Sweat and B. Sweat are dead. The petitioners then proved by J. Denny, that he had heretofore resided in the immediate neighbourhood of W. Sweat, (who is now dead,) the brother of captain Sweat, and with whom negro Suck then lived; that he heard a conversation between Suck and the mother of the witness, in which Suck stated herself to have been free in Virginia, and to have been stolen from thence by captain Sweat. The witness was then asked by the counsel for the petitioners, if it was the reputation of the neighbourhood that Suck was a free woman? To this question the defendant, by his counsel, ob- ' jected. But the Court, [Eaile, Ch. J. and Worrell, S. J. j overruled the objection, and permitted the witness to answer the question, and to testify as to the reputation of the neighbourhood in relation to Suck’s freedom. The defendant excepted.
    2. The petitioners then proved by the above mentioned ■witnesses, the declarations of captain Sweat as to the freedom of Suck. The defendant then proved, that captain Siveat had sold Suck to J. Gibson, deceased; and then proposed to prove, by the declarations of Gibson, that Suck was a slave. But the petitioners, by their coun'sel, objected to the testimony; and the court would not permit it to be given. The defendant excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against him, he appealed to this court, where the cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. and Buchanan, Johnson, Martin, and Dorsey, J.
    
      Chambers and Harrison, for the Appellant,
    cited ¶ Phitl. Evid. \74, J77, 1?8 Peake’s Evid. 12; and The King vs. The Inhabitants of Erith, 8 East, 559.
    
    
      Carmichael, for the Appellee,
    cited Peake’s Evid. lo, 14»
   The Court dissented from the opinion of the county court in the first bill of exceptions, but concurred in that in the second,

JUDGMENT reversed, and frocedendo awarded.*  