Gary v. Stevenson

19 Ark. 580
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedJanuary 15, 1858
StatusPublished

This text of 19 Ark. 580 (Gary v. Stevenson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gary v. Stevenson, 19 Ark. 580 (Ark. 1858).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Scott

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The complainant alleges in his bill, that he is aged about sixteen years, “ a white person, and not a negro, or mulatto; bora of a white woman in the State of Alabama,” with whom his father, Thomas Gary, now a citizen of Caddo Parish in the State of Louisiana, then and for some time before co-habited in the former State; that about the year 1843, his father married another woman, and sent the complainant to the State of Louisiana by one Armstrong, “ who was to keep and maintain him until his father should see fit to call for him:” that Armstrong died in that State, about two years afterwards, and one Moseley administering upon his estate, found among the papers of the intestate, an instrument of writing, indicating that the 'complainant “ had been placed in his, intestate’s charge by the said defendant, Thomas Gary:” whereupon Moseley sent the complainant to Thomas Gary, the defendant, who was then residing in the vicinity of Shreveport in Louisiana, by one Riley Holman; but that Holman, instead of taking complainant to his father, as he had engaged to do, took him to New Orleans, and attempted to sell him, but the complainant “ being white and bearing upon his person no marks indicative of the presence of the African blood, he was unable to effect a sale, and he returned to this country, where he then resided, bringing complainant with him.” That in the year 1850, Holman sold the complainant as a slave to Remson Stevenson, with whom he remained doing menial services until the middle of May, 1854, when he absconded. “ That Holman represented to Stevenson, at the time of the sale, that complainant was the son, or descendant of a slave on his mother’s side, but that he was entitled to his freedom, when he attained his twenty-first year; and that Stevenson bought complainant with the understanding that he was to liberate him when he attained his majority.” That some few days before the complainant absconded, Jesse Turner, a solicitor of the Court, having been authorized in the premises, demanded the complainant from the defendant, Stevenson, as the slave of the defendant, Thomas Gary, but the former refused to deliver him, claiming him as his own slave; but being in embarrassed circumstances, and fearful that the defendant, Gary, might recover in a suit, or that complainant might establish his right to freedom, he resolved to run the complainant off, and sell him in slavery. And the complainant, finding that each of said defendants Stevenson and Gary, was claiming him as a slave, and that he was in imminent danger of being carried off into some remote section of the country, absconded, that he might the better have an opportunity to assert his right to freedom in a Court of justice. That he has been informed, and believes that Stevenson has recently given to Charles F. Brown — whom he prays also to be made a defendant — a bill of sale for complainant as a slave. That both Stevenson and Gary are now endeavoring to get possession of complainant, and he is advised that in case either should succeed, the other will, by action of replevin, obtain possession of him, and that either will run him beyond the limits of the State, and leave his adversary his remedy upon the replevin bond. That in other respects “ he being a white person,” the remedy prescribed by the Legislature for the establishment of freedom in a Court of law is inadequate for his relief, especially as one of the claimants of his person as a slave, is a non-resident, and claims adversely to the other, and that other is insolvent, and unable to respond in damages to complainant for injuries to his person, which he might inflict, and for his services; and besides, the compEtinant would thus be driven to two suits for his freedom instead of one. He therefore prayed for injunction against all the defendants from commencing any suit for the recovery of the possession of him from any one whomsoever; and from laying hands upon him, or from exercising any control or dominion over him, or from doing any act restraining him of his liberty.

The defendant Gary, by his solicitor, entered his appearance, and agreed to plead, answer or demur at the next term, but failed to do so. The defendant Brown answered, denying that his co-defendant, Stevenson, had conveyed the complainant to him, or executed any bill of sale for him, and disclaimed having any title, claim or interest in, or to the complainant, or in any other wise in the matters in controversy.

The other defendant, Stevenson, answered at length, positively denying both that the complainant was a white person, and that he was a free person, and insisting that he was a mulatto, and that he had African blood in him, and that he was a slave, and was born of a slave woman named Susan, who was a mulatto, and a slave from her birth, until about one year before answering, when, being then about forty years of age, she was manumitted by Jesse Turner. He admits that he held and claimed the complainant as his slave for life, and denies that he is entitled to his freedom at twenty-one years of age, or at any other time. In a word, his answer is a full and distinct denial of all the material allegations of the bill. A replication was interposed, and the causé was heard upon bill, answer, replication and depositions. The bill was dismissed, and the complainant appealed.

EVIDENCE FOR COMPLAINANT.

Doctor Brown — Was a physician, and well acquainted with Physiology, and knows what distinguishes the white from the black race — had examined the boy Thomas Gary — could discover no trace of the negro blood in his eyes, nose, mouth or jaws — his hair is smooth and of sandy complexion, perfectly straight and flat, with no indications of the crisp or negro curl: his eyes blue, his jaws thin, his nose slim and long. If he had never heard that he was a slave, would not have suspected that there was negro blood in him. Cannot say there is none, but from external appearances cannot distinguish any — very competent for one to possess negro blood in some degree and not be visible from external appearance but in a small degree. ■Should suppose it would take at least twenty generations from the black blood to be as white as complainant.

Doctor Wilcox — Knew complainant seven or eight years— can discover no evidence of negro blood in him. His eyes blue, his hair straight and light, his complexion sandy — cannot say that there is no negro blood in him, but cannot discern any from external appearance. When first recognized the complainant was in possession of the defendant Stevenson. He is the reputed son of a woman who formerly belonged to Holman as a slave.

Doctor Dibbrdl — Regular graduate of medicine, and practicing physician. Had examined the complainant. From personal appearances would judge him to possess a small amount of negro blood; not more than a sixteenth, perhaps not so much; would not positively swear he had any at all, so vague are the signs of the admixture of the negro race, in one so remotely removed from the African blood by crossing with the white— has no definite rule by which complainant’s case is to be judged, nor is there any reliable one for the certain determination of such a case as his.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 Ark. 580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gary-v-stevenson-ark-1858.