William J. Isabell vs. Elisha Peters, etc.: Chancery Cause, Amherst County (Part 1 of 3)
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.
William J in regard to the condition and health of the slave, was true so far as he knew or believed. He did not state unqualifiedly that the slave was sound and in good health, but he did state that he believed him to be so, and that it in all he did state. There was no contrivance between Mr. Peters and himself that the slave should be placed in his hands and by him sold, for the purpose of awarding the responsibility which would devolve upon Mr. Peters as the vendor. This respondant resided in Lynchburg, a good market for slaves. Mr. Peters lived in the county, and it was believed that this respondants situation would enable him to make a better sale. This respondant humbly conceives that the mode of sale, should be sufficient to refute that position. The sale was upon a credit, and if a fraud had been intended, its consequences must follow the bond unto whosever hands it should pass, and prevent ist collection. And having answered the allegations of the plaintiffs bill so far he is advised it is any way believed he should answer the same and denying all fraud he prays to be dismissed with his costs
Corporation of Lynchburg to wit This day Seth Halsey came before me Caswell Poe an alderman for said Corporation and made oath that the foregoing answer is true so far as regards himself and so far as regards others he believes to be true. Given under my hand this 15 March 1835. C. Poe