
    Fulton vs Lewis.
    Appeal from the Court of Oyer and Terminer, &c. for Baltimore county. This was ¿'petition fot freedom, and the general issue pleaded'.
    At the trial the following.facts were admitted in evidence: John Levant,, a married man, bein'g a native'and resident of the Island off Saint Domingo, removed from that place in July 1793, flying from disturbances which then existed, theré, endangering the fives and property of the inhabitants! and brought with him into this;state three negroes, of whom the petitioner, (now appellee,) is one,' whom he then and before owned íis a slave! That in May 1794, he sold the' petitioner, as a slave, to William Clemm, Who sold him as such'fo the1 defendant, (the appellant.) ' That said Levatit arrived ¿t Baltiinofe, in August 1793, and continued to resille theré up til sometime 'irii 798, when lie returned to the 'Wesl'Mdies.“ The defendant thereupon prayed the direction'of the court;to the jury, that if they be-Keyed the fact si, the petitioner" was not entitled to his ñ-ee^ ■ A ’“t í . 1 L .‘1 i.w • >>' t' i-.v* «> dora. This opinion the Court, [Scott, Ch. ,T.l refused to give; but directed the jury, that upon these facta the petitioner was free.' The defendant excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against him, he appealed to this court, where the case was argued before Chase, Ch. J. and Bm chañan, Nicholson, Earle, Johnson, and Martin, J.
    
      J L, a married irnin, a native* of «St. Domingo, flying1 from the dangers which existed there, removed into this state in 1793, bringing with him three negroes, whom lie had before and then owned as slaves. In 1794 he sold one of them as a slave, to y? C, who sold, him to RF, JT X* continued to reside in this state until 1796, when lie returned to the West Jndies. The negro thus sold petitioned ior his freedom apmst K F — Held, that he was entitled to freedom '
    
      
      Glenn, for the Appellant,
    contended that the act of 1783, ch. 23, under which the petitioner claimed his freedom, meant only a voluntary importation of slaves, and not an importation arising from absolute necessity, produced by causes over which the owner, as in this case, had and could have no control, lie referred to De Kerlegand vs. Negro Hector, 3 Harr. & M‘Hen. 185, and the act of 1792, ch. 56.
    Montgomery, (Attorney-General,) Jenings and Scott, for the Appellee,
   judgment affirmed.  