
    JAMES M. RUSSELL, Esquire, against the COMMONWEALTH.
    IN ERROR.
    A writ of error will not lie to the opinion of the Court of Common Pleas, discharging a person, on a writ of habeas corpus, from servitude.
    This was a writ of error to Bedford county, to remove the record and proceedings upon a habeas corpus which issued to James M. Russell, Esquire, for the body of Charily Brogden.
    
    
      Charily Brogden, the negro woman who claims her freedom, was a slave for life in Maryland, and was there sold at public sale, by the sheriff, on an execution against her master. Mr. Russell, the respondent, who was the surety of the master for the debt for which the said slave was sold, becahie a bidder, and purchased the slave in due form, according to the laws of Maryland.
    A deed of manumission was executed by Mr. Russell to Charily, on consideration- of'hcr serving him for a certain term of years.. An indenture was then- executed and acknowledged before the proper officer in Maryland, dated 16th October, 1821, between Mr. Russell and Charity, by which she voluntarily binds herself to serve said Russell, his heirs, &c. in the state of Pennsylvania, for the term of ten years, from 15th October, 1821. Mr. Russell covenants to find her sufficient meat, drink, clothing, washing and lodging, &c. and one dollar when free, &c. Previous to the dispute, Mr. Russell remitted on the indenture the three last years of servitude. At the time the deed and indenture were executed, Charity was forty years of age, and at the time the writ of habeas corpus issued in this case, she was forty-five years of age.
    Upon the single fact of the age of Charity being forty-five years when the writ issued, the court of common pleas-, (Tod, president,) discharged the applicant, at the same time saying that they did not know what the opinion of the court would have been, if Charity had been but thirty years of age, or any period less than forty-five years.
    But their opinion is formed upon the facts as they are, and that to hold Charity under the circumstances, would be contrary to the spirit of the laws of Pennsylvania,’ for the gradual abolition of slavery.
    In this court, two points are made-
    1st. Will a writ of error' liento remove the judgment of the court of common pleas, rendered upon a habeas capus.
    
    2d. Was the court right in their opinion by which they discharged Charity from servitude.
    
      M Culloch and Russell for the plaintiff in error.
    No appearance for defendant in error.
   The cause was submitted without argument; and the writ was quashed, on the ground that no writ of error will lie to remove a judgment upon a habeas corpus.  