Difference between revisions of ".MTY5NDI.NzA0MTU"
m (Protected ".MTY5NDI.NzA0MTU" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))
Latest revision as of 16:44, 21 March 2019
of the plough were the property of Parsons Bradley and consequently devolved, by his death, Intestate on his son the defendant David Bradley, perhaps is sufficiently proven by his sales of two others of the same stock by the acquiescence of Godfrey Ragsdale family and by the inventory of Parsons Bradleys estate signed and returned by his widow and Godfrey Ragsdales son and heir and well at present be supposed to be proven notwithstanding the testimony of William Ragsdale and Alexander Taylor. Will then the demand of the defendants defeat the emancipation by David Bradley after twelve years uninterrupted enjoyment, under it, by the plaintiffs of this liberty? That mankind had a right to [desicate?] the elephant, the camel, the buffalo, the reindeer, the ox, the horse, the mule and other beasts of the forest and subjugate them to prove would be difficult, if possible, without restoring to Divine Revelation, wherein are found the Charters one granting to the protolast Adam, dominion over every living thing that moveth upon the earth and the other to his descendant Noah, declaring that the fear of him and the dread of him should be upon every beast of the earth and upon all that moveth upon the earths and that into his hand they were delivered. But he who shall pretend that one man had a dominion over, had a right to subjugate, to make a slave of another man (25) against his will and without any crime by him committed is asked, whether the man too black or swarthie to blush with a crisped woolly pole had this dominion, this right over the man of a fair rubicund countenance wearing on his head a suit of hair lank or disheveled or waving in ringlets adown his shoulders, or vice versa? Whether the farmer of these in