Difference between revisions of ".MTY4ODM.NjkxNTE"

From Transcribe Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 3: Line 3:
 
Randal  vs  Swope
 
Randal  vs  Swope
 
Rhoda Ann  vs  Currins admr
 
Rhoda Ann  vs  Currins admr
 +
Memorandum, on the trial of these causes the plaintiffs to support the issues on their part, offerred to read the deposition of Harry Curty, in the words and figures following to wit, (Here insert depo no 1) The defts by their counsel objected to the reading of so much of said depositions as gives the statements of Flora (from whom the plft, claim to be descended) in relation to her right to Freedom & her request of the witness to have a letter written to obtain information upon that subject. They also objected to the answers to the two last questions in said deposition - The plfs counsel stated that their object in introducing this testimony was to [illegible] the presumption arising from lapse of time that James Stevens (who as the defendants alleged had brought the said Flora & two of her children from the state of New York to Virginia in the year 1784) had taken the oath required by the act of the general assembly of Virginia entitled an act for preventing the farther importation of slaves passed in 1778. The Court sustained the objection & refused to permit so much

Latest revision as of 13:19, 18 January 2019

Unis etc Charltons admr etc Phillis; etc vs Same Randal vs Swope Rhoda Ann vs Currins admr Memorandum, on the trial of these causes the plaintiffs to support the issues on their part, offerred to read the deposition of Harry Curty, in the words and figures following to wit, (Here insert depo no 1) The defts by their counsel objected to the reading of so much of said depositions as gives the statements of Flora (from whom the plft, claim to be descended) in relation to her right to Freedom & her request of the witness to have a letter written to obtain information upon that subject. They also objected to the answers to the two last questions in said deposition - The plfs counsel stated that their object in introducing this testimony was to [illegible] the presumption arising from lapse of time that James Stevens (who as the defendants alleged had brought the said Flora & two of her children from the state of New York to Virginia in the year 1784) had taken the oath required by the act of the general assembly of Virginia entitled an act for preventing the farther importation of slaves passed in 1778. The Court sustained the objection & refused to permit so much