From Transcribe Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Robertson US 23 North In this ease as well as in the ease of Bowles us North, I am counsel for me plain hiffs Bowles [illegible] and [Myrhlda?]. If these plain hiffs were ually slaves, I do not see how they could have the benefit of the [illegible] in their favors decreed to them. But they contend that in truth they are emancipated by the will. It is certain that no particular words are prescribed which must be used in order to emancipate a slave. In a will the value for of the [illegible] is all that in receptors. In their case, all the provisions in the will and codicil prove clearly the valuator to manumit my clients. They are to be hired to masters of their choosing; are to have the heir to the used at theri discretion; and in case they marry free men, considerate legacies are given to them. To decide that they are not free, would be to decide against the [iniuatar?] of the [illegible] and to decide that particular words are receptors to [illegible] a slave. But in addition to this, the cordial expectly directs that they shall be emancipated as soon as the laws of the commonwealth would permit. It was said in argument, that their provision of [illegible] to the offspring of the female [illegible] only. It seems to the that the privileges of the offspring were to be only equal to those of the mother. The [illegible] had granted privileges in the will to the mothers, and their the codicided he gave the same privileges to their offspring, and that the words "that may" [illegible] to the mothers only-for by extending their privileges. by [illegible] them, he emacipated tehir offsping. Either their instructor must prevail, or the words "that they" mark, from the manifest meaning of the [illegible], the held to [illegible] to both mothers and offspring. In the arguement it was eratsnded that the provisions in favour of the Heffs were valiended to evade