From Transcribe Wiki
Revision as of 18:50, 5 February 2022 by Acmwitz (talk | contribs) (Protected ".MzgxOTI.MTMxNTEy" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

have spoken in detail of what each member of such family would have hired for, or what would have been a reasonable compensation for the support per annum of each member of such family, who was chargeable. Had such a mode of examination been adopted it is believed that the Commissioner would have come to a very different result from that at which he arrived. Indeed it would seem that some of these witnesses, if not all of them, never examined the slaves with the view of forming a judgement upon the value of their hires. From the accounts of sales of the slaves belonging to the estate of Miss Martha Watts which were held by the plaintiff, it appears that the said slaves sold in the aggregate for upwards of $27,000. and yet the commissioner has reported that the aggregate amount of their hires for the year 1848 (being the year next preceding the sale of the larger portion of them), amounted only in the aggregate to the sum of $300! This is regarded as a most startling, and conclusive fact to shew that the estimate of hires adopted by the commissioner is greatly too low and entirely inadmissible. 3d. Upon the ground, and for the reasons stated in the answer filed in this cause, the defendant excepts to all the allowances made by the Commissioner for the alleged expenses of raising, and supporting the slaves, or any of them, mentioned in the report. And should it even be held that the plaintiff is entitled to any compensation on this score, the defendant excepts to the allowances so made by the commissioner, upon the further ground that the laws are unreasonable, excessive, and not justified by the evidence, and relies in support of this last ground upon the reasons assigned by him to sustain the next preceding exception. 4th Because the Commissioner has annually credited the Plaintiff, commencing with the year 1837, and coming down to, and embracing the year 1848, with various sums of money as paid by the plaintiff for the taxes, parish and county levies on the slaves in question. There is no evidence in the record shewing that the plaintiff ever made such payments,