Loudon v. Charles Scott. Jury Instructions Jennifer Guiliano Trevor Muñoz William G. Thomas III transcription and encoding Steph N. Camerone Kaci L. Nash Laura K. Weakly University of Nebraska-Lincoln University of Maryland National Endowment for the Humanities 2016 O Say Can You See University of Nebraska-Lincoln Center for Digital Research in the Humanities
319 Love Library University of Nebraska–Lincoln Lincoln, NE 68588-4100 cdrh@unl.edu
oscys.case.0370.014 oscys.caseid.0396 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Derivatives must be credited to O Say Can You See, made available non-commercially, and distributed under the same terms. Requests for permission for commercial publication or other use should be emailed to the project team.

 Jury Instructions Our transcription is based on a digital image of the original. Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia Local Government Records Collection, Arlington County Court Records Arlington County (Va.) Judgments (Freedom Suits), 1795-1858, Box 1 Case Papers Jury Instructions Civil Petition for Freedom July 1808 Scott, Charles Maryland Alexandria County (Va.) Loudon Scott, Charles W. United States. Circuit Court (District of Columbia) Alexandria (Washington, D.C.) added xml:ids; transcription reviewed transcribed, encoded

If the Jury shd. be of opinion from the Evidence that that the plf was a slave of the Plf in the year 1800 and was brought into the County of Alexandria from the State of Maryland since the year 1800 by Charles Scott Junior Senior without the ass who was not the owner of the Slave, and that neither the said Charles Scott Senior, nor the owner of the slave, took the oath in the required by the act of Assembly, within 60 days from the time when the said Ch. Scott Senior brought the plf into the said County of Alexandria as aforesaid, and that the Plf was has been kept in the County of Alexa. one whole year together, or so long at different times as have amounted to one year, then the plf is intitled to his freedom.

1

Whereupon the Court instructed the Jury that if they should be of opinion from the evidence

That the Defts father brought the Plf into from the State of Md. into the County of Alexa. in July the year 1802, and exercised acts of ownership over the plf and hired him out as his slave with the knowledge and assent of the Deft, and if the Plf has been kept in the County of Alexa. one whole year, or so long at different times as amounts to a whole year from the importation to the time of bringing the action and that neither the Deft nor his said father took the oath required by the act of assembly of Md. and Virga. within 60 days after the Plf was first brought in as aforesaid. and that no other oath was taken th made but that which the deft has offered in evidence as aforesaid, then the Plf is intitled to his freedom. and altho the Jury the Plf should in that the was the property of the Dft at the time he was so brought in.