Lewis: Freedom Suit, Arlington County (Part 2 of 2)
Zoom in to read each word clearly.
Some images may have writing in several directions. To rotate an image, hold down shift-Alt and use your mouse to spin the image so it is readable.
T. F. Mason says that several days previous to the agreement made for setting the case of Peter & Lewis for hearing & of the [agreement?] upon that subject, Mr. Peyton called upon him and submitted several adjudged cases saying he was satisfied that the negroes in question must lose their claim to freedom on two grounds - 1st that being born during the term of service of the mother they belonged to to the owner of the mother during the term- 2d that being held by Savary as his own property for more than 5 yrs [antecedent?] to the deed of Manumission & at the time said deed was made, that it was inoperative and upon both points [illegible] adjudged cases to T. F. N. on Wednesday last after said agreement for setting the case for hearing Mr. Peyton again called on me, when I more particularly examined the papers & was satisfied that the fact of Savary's possession was not directly stated, indeed that the contrary might fairly be informed. Mr. Peyton was quite positive the possession as contended for was [otherwise?], & that from the possession the claim to them as his absolute property was fairly to be informed as he held them under no other contract etc. I did not agree with Mr. Peyton upon [illegible] and [illegible] that [both?] the fact of possession & the nature of the claim of Savary was definitively stated, & after some differently [illegible] Mr. Peyton he was mistaken in supposing the Birth & owner filed did admit [these?] points as [contended?] for by him Sworn to in Court 30th April 1825
Edm J. Lee C