Walter Thomas & Dennis Thomas v. Alexander Scott. Circuit Court Report Jennifer Guiliano Trevor Muñoz William G. Thomas III transcription and encoding Elizabeth Askren Kaci L. Nash Laura K. Weakly University of Nebraska-Lincoln University of Maryland National Endowment for the Humanities 2014 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.report.0004.001 oscys.caseid.0260 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.

 Reports of Cases Civil and Criminal in the United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, from 1801 to 1841 William Cranch Little, Brown and Company Volume II 1852 Boston Supplementary Documents Court Report Civil Petition for Freedom June 1810 Thomas, Dennis Thomas, Walter Scott, Alexander Law, John United States. Circuit Court (District of Columbia) Washington (D.C.) added xml:ids; removed England from places updated case number encoded

Negro Walter Thomas v. Alexander Scott

Upon a petition for freedom, the defendant may appear and disclaim, without entering into the usual recognizance.

Petition for freedom. The defendant, Scott, offered to appear and disclaim all right of property in the petitioner, at the time of service of the subpœna or any time since.

Mr. Law, for the petitioner, objected that he must enter into a recognizance before he can appear, and prayed for an attachment for not obeying the summons. The Act of Assembly 1796, c. 43, § 5, authorizes the Court to require such a recognizance. Mr. Law suggested that Mr. Scott, knowing that a petition was filed, sold and conveyed away the negro before service of the subpœna.

The Court said that a man may appear, to disclaim, without entering into the recognizance to have the negro forthcoming, and refused the attachment.