
    The Inhabitants of Lanesborough versus the Inhabitants of Westfield.
    The children of slaves under the provincial government, not being slaves, derived no settlement from their parents, nor from the master of their parents; but were jilii reipublica.
    
    Assumpsit for the support of Jjucy Goman and William Hector Goman, jun., paupers, alleged by the plaintiffs to have their legal settlement-in Westfield.
    
    It was agreed by the parties, that Plato and Flora his wife, parents of the said Lucy, were the slaves of one John [ * 75 ] * Bancroft, an inhabitant legally settled in Westfield, before the revolution; that the said Lucy was born in April, 1778, and continued with her said parents in the family of the said Bancroft, until the forming and adoption of the constitution of the commonwealth; that she resided in Westfield until the year 1803, when she removed to Lanesborough, and has dwelt there ever since ; that she has never gained a settlement in any place, unless she acquired one by her birth in Westfield; that in June, 1804, she was married to William H. Goman, who has never gained a settlement in any town or district; that William H. Goman, jun., the other pauper, was the legitimate child of the said marriage, being born in Lanesborough in July, 1811. If the Court should be of opinion that the paupers, or either of them, had a legal settlement in West-field, the defendants were to be defaulted, and the amount of the plaintiffs’ damages ascertained by an auditor appointed by the Court; otherwise the plaintiffs were to become nonsuit.
    
      Washburn, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Blair, for the defendants.
   Parker, C. J.

The plaintiffs cannot prevail, unless Lucy Goman derived a settlement in Westfield from her parents, who had their settlement in that town derivatively from Bancroft, whose slaves they were. Now, it has been before settled that slaves did not communicate civil relations of any sort to their children . [f the child was bom a slave, its settlement was direct from the master, whose property it would be ; if born free, it could inherit neither disabilities nor privileges from its parents.

By the colonial law of 1646, no bond slavery could exist, except in the case of lawful captives taken in just war, or such as willingly sold themselves, or were sold to the inhabitants . Of course, the children of those who in fact were, or who were reputed to be, slaves, not coming within the description, could not be held as slaves. And in the year 1796, it was solemnly and unanimously decided by the Court, that the issue of slaves, although *born be- [ * 76 ] fore the adoption of the constitution, were born free .

Lucy, the pauper, then, did not derive a settlement in Westfield from her parents, nor from their master ; nor did she acquire one by birth, that not giving a settlement at the time she was born. She must therefore be filia reipublicce, never having gained a settlement in any other town in the commonwealth; and the issue of her marriage, the other pauper, is in like condition, never having derived a settlement from his parents or acquired one himself .

Plaintiffs nonsuit. 
      
       13 Mass. Rep 547, Andover vs. Canton
      
     
      
       Vide Ancient Charters, &c. 52.
     
      
       4 Mass. Rep. 128, note. Littleton vs. Tuttle.
      
     
      
      
        '(4) [Littleton vs. Tuttle, 4 Mass. 128.—Andover vs. Canton, 13 Mass. 547.—Winchen don vs. Hadfield, 4 Mass. 123.—Springfield vs. Wilbraham, 4 Mass. 496.—Dighton vs. Freetown, 4 Mass. 539.—Stochbridge vs. Stockbridge, 14 Mass. 257.—Ed.]
     