Craven County, NC - Civil Actions Concerning Slaves & Free Persons of Color
                    Part 2, 1853-1885

Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Sue Guptill - sguptill@mindspring.com

Craven County
Civil Actions Concerning Slaves
and
Free Persons of Color
no date
1788, 1806-1860, 1885
CR.028.928.7

Civil Actions Concerning Slaves and Free Persons of Color 1853-1858
(Broken Series)

Prosecution bond by Luke B. HUGGINS with Isham JACKSON and Jeremiah N. ALLEN 
to prosecute appeal against Richard N. TAYLOR. HUGGINS had taken out a 
warrant against TAYLOR for $36, which was tried by Charles KELLY, Esq. on 23 
Feb 1853 and dismissed; HUGGINS obtained a writ to have the judgment moved to 
the Superior Court. 19 Apr 1853

IOU from Richard N. TAYLOR to Luke HUGGINS for $36 for hire of Negro woman 
Julia. 1 Jan 1852. Attached: Account owed by L.R. HUGGINS to Richd. N. TAYLOR 
for 12 months board of 2 negro children. 1852. Attached: Warrant for Richard 
N. TAYLOR to appear and answer LukeB. HUGGINS that he owes him $36. 22 Feb 
1853

In obedience to an order from the Clerk of Superior Court “to make a record 
of the plaint before me of L.. HUGGINS  vs. Richard N. TAYLOR, and not having 
papers before me, I make the following record from memory.” On 23 Feb 1843 a 
warrant was returned by J. Mc. BRINSON, D. Sheriff where L.B. HUGINS 
complained that R.N. TAYLOR owed him $46 by notes. Defendant R.N. TAYLOR 
appeared and produced an a/c against HUGGINS for $36, and the plaintiff (or 
any attorney or agent for him) not appearing, the judgment was made that 
there was a set-off to the $36 and judgment is in favor of the defendant and 
against plaintiff for costs. 20 Apr 1853 (by C. KELLEY, Esq.) Attached: Order 
to sheriff to obtain record from Charles KELLEY. 19 Apr 1853

Luke B. HUGGINS vs. Richd. N. TAYLOR: Oath by Jas. McC BRINSON that he was 
the officer in whose hands the note mentioned in the petition against Richard 
N. TAYLOR was placed to be warranted on by Isom JACKSON as the agent of Luke 
HUGGINS. Isom JACKSON had due notice of the warrant and of the time & place 
of trial & that the trial was before Charles KELLEY, one of the special 
magistrates of the Town of New Bern. BRINSON informed Isom JACKSON of the 
judgment rendered in the case and JACKSON informed him that he had no 
instructions from HUGGINS to take an appeal—by due course of mail a letter 
can be sent to Wilminton & an answer be returned in 5 or 6 days. JACKSON, 
TAYLOR, KELLY, & this affiant [BRINSON] all live in the town of New Bern & 
there resided at the time of the trial. 29 Apr 1854

Luke B. HUGGINS vs. Richd. N. TAYLOR: Oath by Chas KELLY that he was the 
magistrate that tried the issue in this case. Before the trial, Isam JACKSON, 
agent of HUGGINS informed affiant that the defendant would plead set-off. 
Upon the trial the facts and issues were fairly presented and affiant gave 
judgment for defendant. After the judgment affiant was ready at all times to 
grant an appeal to HUGGINS or his agent, but that no appeal was ever sued by 
JACKSON or any other person on behalf of the plaintiff. 29 Apr 1854

Small slip of paper: Luke MASON vs. Thomas S.JENNINGS} Judgment, Spring term 
1855
Suit abated by the death of the deft. Each party to pay his own cost. Pltf 
entire part: Luke B. HUGGINS, pltff witness, $13.10

Petition of Luke B. HUGGINS of the town of Wilmington and county of New 
Hanover against Richard N. TAYLOR of the town of New Berne and County of 
Craven: On 1 Jan 1852 HUGGINS hired to the defendant (TAYLOR) a negro woman 
for one year, and took his obligation for the price due 1 Jan 1853. After the 
note had become due he demanded payment from the defendant which was refused. 
He then placed the note in the hands of James McC. BRINSON, deputy sheriff of 
Craven Co. with instructions to recover the same by process of law.
BRINSON warranted the defendant and ordered him to trial before Charles 
KELLY, JP of Craven on 23 Feb 1853 and where the defendant trumped up an 
account for precisely the amount of the claim of petitioner against him and 
pleaded the same before KELLY as a set off to petitioner’s claim. Charles 
allowed the same and gave judgment against petitioner for costs; BRINSON 
neglected to take an appeal and petitioner being then in Wilmington, the 
place he resides, and having no notice of the trial and of the judgment 
against him, was unable to give bond and take an appeal within the time 
allowed by Act of Assembly. Petitioner is therefore without remedy, save in 
this application. Petitioner assures Your Honor that the pretended account 
used by defendant as a set off against his just claim is utterly false and 
untenable, as petitioner is prepared to show.
Petitioner therefore prays a writ of Recordair [order to record proceedings] 
be directed to KELLY and to have the record before Your Honor on the 4th 
Monday after the 4th Monday of March, and notice be given to defendant. 7 Apr 
1853

Order to Richard N. TAYLOR to attend court on the 4th Mon. after the 4th Mon. 
o f March next to answer concerning those things which will be objected to 
you by the petition of Luke B. HUGGINS. 19 Apr 1853. [Copy of above petition 
is attached—sbg]

Answer of Richard N. TAYLOR to the petition of Luke B. HUGGINS: It is true on 
the 1st day of Jan 1852 he hired from the petitioner a negro won named Julia 
and executed his obligation payable 1 Jan 1853 for $36, the full value of the 
negro woman unencumbered for one year. After the execution of the note and 
after petitioner had left this county for Wilmington and when this defendant 
was about to take possession of the slave into his service he was astonished 
to discover that the slave Julia had with her 2 infant children of her own, 
one aged about 2 ½ years and one about 1 year. This circumstance had been 
wholly concealed from the defendant by petitioner. Humanity forbade that this 
defendant should separate Julia from her infant children and compelled him to 
take care of them as petitioner had made no provision for the same. 
Petitioner soon after the execution of the note was given notice by letter of 
the facts when he discovered them. Defendant provided for the children for 
the year 1852 which was worth at least $36 if not more and the account which 
petitioner alleged was trumped up and which this defendant pleaded as a set-
off to the sum due on the note was for the care and provision of the children 
who were the slaves of the petitioner.
Petitioner placed the note for collection in the hands of an intelligent 
agent in the town of Newbern who put the note in the hands of an officer for 
collection. The agent was informed by deft. of the offset he intended to 
plead to the note and the agent gave notice of this fact to petitioner. 
Defendant was warranted on the note and ordered to trial before Charles 
KELLY, magistrate, and agent had full notice of the time and place of trial. 
Upon plea of set-off, magistrate gave judgment for defendant. Officer and 
agent had full notice of judgement and had neglected to take an appeal 
thereupon and agent and ample time to communicate with petitioner by mail 
before the expiration of the 10 days after the rendering of judgment, and 
appeal was not taken because of the neglect of petitioner and agent. Fall 
term 1853

IOU from Stevenson & Hooper, Richd. N. TAYLOR, Geo. S. STEVENSON to Oliver S. 
DEWEY for the hire of slaves Killis & Smith for $250 for 12 months from 1 Jan 
1855. They agree to feed and clothe the sales, provide medical aid and pay 
all other expenses during the year, and to carry them out of the State of NC 
and return them to Oliver S. DEWEY on or before 1 Jan 1855 [Note: This should 
probably be 1856] at Newbern, NC at their own expense. 1 Jan 1855

Appearance bond by Thomas HOOPER (no bondsman) to appear and answer Oliver S. 
DEWEY (suing to the use of William H. PEARCE) of a plea that he render him 
$250 which he owes and unjustly detains, damage $50. ___ Feb 1856

Appearance bond by Richard TAYLOR with John OSGOOD, bondsman to appear and 
answer Oliver S. DEWEY (suing to the use of William H. PEARCE) of a plea that 
he render him $250 which he owes and unjustly detains, damage $50. 9 Feb 1856

Prosecution bond by William H. PEARCE with George GREEN, bondsman to 
prosecute case against [can’t read], Thomas HOOPER, and Richard N. TAYLOR. 29 
Jan 1856

Appearance bond by James STEVENSON to appear and answer Oliver S. DEWEY, 
suing to the use of William PENDER of a plea that he render $200 which he 
owes and unjustly detains.31 Jan 1856

Warrant for James STEVENSON, Jr., Thomas HOOPER, Richard N.TAYLOR, and George 
STEVENSON to appear and answer Oliver S. DEWEY, (suing to the use of William 
H. PEARCE) of a plea that they render him $250 which they owe and unjustly 
detain, damage $50. Dec 1855.[There are 2 copies of this document].

Summons for William TEMPLE, Elijah TAYLOR,Sr., Alford H. CASEY and John 
WHITEHEAD to appear and testify on behalf of the State in a matter in which 
the State is plaintiff and Elijah GEORGE (a free person of color) is 
defendant. June 1858.

Julia A. RHEM by her agent John M. CLEMMONS has made oath that Harriet of a 
dark complexion of the age of about 4 years and Mary of about 3 years and 
Jane 35 years and her child 12 months old has been in her lawful possession 
within the year next proceeding and that she has been deprived of the 
possession of her slaves by the defendant Francis RUSSELL without her 
consent. The slaves are of the value Hariet $450, Mary $250, Jane and her 
child $800. Julia RHEM has given bond in the amount of $3000 to perform the 
final judgment on the writ of replevin. 
Sheriff is commanded to take the slaves into custody and deliver to plaintiff 
unless the defendant executes a bond in the amount of $3000. Sheriff is also 
commanded to summon Frank RUSSELL to appear at the next October term of court 
to answer Julia RHEM of a plea of taking the unjustly detaining the slaves. 
20 May 1858

Wm. HOOPER & A.M. HOOPER vs. Wm. P. HADLEY & J.C. TURENTINE} Trespass for 
taking negroes Sylla or Priscilla and her child. 
Compromise agreed to in this suit: Each party is to pay half of costs of 
suit. Defendants are to surrender the Negroes Sylla or Priscilla and the 
child which she had at the commencement of the action, and another child born 
since, and HADLEY to convey such title to them as he may have to plaintiff. 
Plaintiffs are to release defendants from all damages for taking and 
detention of the negroes and the defendants shall have the hire of the 
negroes from the time they were sold until the present time, and if there 
should be any mistake in the names of the parties to the suit, it is agreed 
that the above named are the terms of the final settlement and compromise of 
the suit pending in Craven Superior Court by or on behalf of the trustees of 
Mary F. WADDELL and her children and for their benefit and selling them under 
execution in Orange Co. in favor of Wm. P. HADLEY, Executor against Haynes 
WADDELL and Maurice Q. WADDELL no matter in whose names the suit may stand. 
A4 Apr 1856. [Note: Top of page says this is a copy]

Bond by Julia A. RHEM and J.M. CLEMMONS to guarantee their pursuit of a suit 
of replevin against Frank RUSSELL to final judgment. 20 May 1858

H.P. WHITEHURST, agent N.A. COHEN, Trustee of Jacob COHN, & agent of Thomas 
DOWDY & W. C. KING makes oath that Calvin MORRIS is indebted to COHN in the 
amount of $59.97 by account, to DOWDY in the sum of $25.75 by note, and to 
W.C. KING in the sum of $7.05 by judgment, and that he believes that Calvin 
MORRIS has absconded or removed from the County, or conceals himself so that 
the ordinary process of law cannot be served on him. 27 Sept. 1859. 
Below this: Prosecution bond by H.P. WHITEHURST and John D. FLANNER to 
prosecute suit against Calvin MORRIS. 27 Sept 1859
Back of page: H.P. WHITEHURST has complained that Calvin MORRIS and wife are 
indebted to N.A. COHN, trustee of Jacob COHN in the amount of $59.97, to 
Thomas DOWDY in the sum of $25.75 by note, and to Wm.C. KING in the sum of 
$7.05 by judgment, and that he believes that Calvin MORRIS has absconded from 
the County to conceal himself so that the ordinary process of law cannot be 
served on him. Order to sheriff to attach enough of the estate of MORRIS as 
to satisfy the above debts. 27 Sept 1859
Attached: Philip PIPKIN, summoned as garnishee in this case says that he 
purchased of Calvin J. MORRIS & wife & Norman JACKSON, trustee, a negro man 
named Luck, for which he was to pay $300 without any condition, which he did 
pay to Norman JACKSON, & a note payable to JACKSON trustee for $200, to be 
void if the negro was not delivered to him on the night of 27 September, & 
said negro was not delivered, & he believes the negro was intentionally 
withheld from him, that he had an interview with Norman JACKSON who told him 
the negro man Luck was sent to Newbern. 28 Sept 1859

Civil Actions concerning slaves and free persons of color		1860

Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jno. STANTON: This was an action of trespass vi et armis 
[Note: This means trespass with force and arms, and means that there was 
physical damage of some kind to a person or property due to the defendant’s 
actions—sbg], brought by the plaintiff to try whether the plaintiff was 
entitled to his freedom. It was admitted that the plaintiff was in the the 
possession and under the control of the defendant, he having him in custody 
and controlling him alleging he was the defendant’s slave; it was admitted 
that the plaintiff was black. The plaintiff introduced evidence to show that 
for 30-35 years prior to his birth, his mother and his maternal grandmother 
were known, recognized and admitted to be free persons of color & had been 
generally reputed, passed and acted as such; that they were generally known, 
passed, and were reputed as the “MKIM negroes”—that his mother removed, as 
such, from Carteret, and lived as such without other control, in Hyde, being 
the wife of a slave, but living to herself, & without control by anyone. 
There was other evidence of this kind which it is unnecessary to set out in 
detail. The defendant then introduced evidence to show that during the time 
aforesaid, the mother and grandmother were slaves and showed that the 
plaintiff had at one time some years ago been confined in jail & claimed as a 
slave; that his grandmother went to see him & his brother while so confined 
and said if “Massa MCKIM has done as he promised to do, the children would 
not have been served so”—he also proved the plaintiff’s mother had been held 
in servitude as a slave for several years past—is now so held—He also offers 
to show forth in evidence the paper writing annexed, and marked to show the 
plaintiffs maternal grandmother Beck was reported as a slave the property of 
W. MKIM, which on exception of pltffs counsel was ruled out—there was other 
evidence to the same end which was not necessary to be detailed. Defendant 
also offered in evidence a bill of sale for the plaintiff to show he had been 
reported a slave which was rejected by the court.
Judge charged the jury:
1.	A presumption arose from the plaintiffs color, that he was a slave and 
it was a question of fact for them to say whether the presumption, thus 
arising, was met & overcome or not by the other evidence in this course.
2.	That no length of illegal & usurped servitude of the plaintiff would 
make him a slave if he was born free
3.	That if they found, from the evidence, which it was competent for them 
to do, if believed, that the maternal grandmother & mother of pltff were 
never slaves, and the plaintiff was born free, then the plaintiff is 
entitled to recover.
4.	That if from the evidence they found the grandmother & mother were once 
slaves, if the evidence satisfies them, that for 30-35 years they had 
passed, were recognized, and were known & reputed to be free persons of 
color they might infer that the grandmother & mother had been emancipated 
or set free by some [can’t read] recognized by the Law, at the time; to 
which he added on motion of the Council for the plaintiff that if they 
believed they so passed, they ought to infer in the absence of opposing 
testimony.
There was a verdict for the plaintiff. 
Rule for venire de novo [new trial] for rejection of evidence & for 
misdirection. Rule discharged. Judgment upon the verdict against the deft. & 
appeal. No date

Supreme Court of NC
Will BROOKFIELD vs. Jona. STANTON: The exception to the charge of His Honor 
is entirely without foundation—The instruction to the jury upon the effect of 
the testimony was explicitly and in accordance with repeated adjudication. 
[Gives references]
The objection to the bill of sale for the plaintiff, offered by the defendant 
to show that he had been regarded and treated as a slave was properly 
sustained by the Court. The plaintiff had put his claim to freedom upon the 
ground that he was born free; and to prove that fact he had offered testimony 
to show his mother and maternal grandmother had for upwards of 30 years been 
recognized to be free persons of color. If freedom of the plaintiff’s mother 
was established at the time of his birth, the bill of sale for him could not 
have the effect to prove him to be a slave, if his mother was not free, it 
was not insisted that the plaintiff could be so, so the bill of sale was 
irrelevant in either case.
We regret that we cannot say the same of the attachment against MCKIM which 
was issued in the year 1809 and levied by the sheriff of Carteret County upon 
the plaintiff’s grandmother, offered by the defendant to show that she was 
then regarded and treated as a slave. This was offered in connection with 
other circumstances in reply to the plaintiff as to the reputation of his 
mother and grandmother as free persons of color and relied upon by the 
defendant to rebut the presumption arising therefrom. It was an act done in 
the course of a judicial proceeding within 30 years before the defendant’s 
birth tending to show that his grandmother was not at that time regarded as a 
free person; it was not at all conclusive and may have been very slight 
evidence of it, but it was a circumstance proper to be considered by the 
jury, and it was error on the judge to withhold it from them. 
Below this is a summary of the decision which orders a venire de novo [new 
trial] in Superior Court. December term 1858

William BROOKFIELD vs. Frederick P. STANTON: Notice to plaintiff that 
depositions will be taken on behalf of the defendant at the house of Mrs. 
Elizabeth BACKMAN in Beaufort, Carteret Co., on 11, 12, & 13 Oct next. 25 
Sept 1855. [Note: Document says Frederick P. STANTON. Most other documents 
say Jonathan].
Attached: Order to Elijah CANADAY  to take the depositions of Ruth HARRIS, 
Elizabeth [X] BECKMON, & James DAVIS concerning what they know in a case in 
which William BROOKFIELD is plaintiff and Jonathan STAUNTON is defendant. Apr 
1855
Attached: Depositions taken by Elijah CANADAY of the County of Carteret
Elizabeth BECKMAN: Q by the defendant: Know the woman Beck. Know that John 
MCKIM left this woman Beck when a child to be bound out with his friends; she 
was to be free when she was of age. 
Ruth HARRIS: Q. by defendant: Know the woman Beck. I have always understood, 
and have heard my father say, that she was the property of John MCKIM. I know 
that my Father paid an Execution which Elijah CANADAY held against John MCKIM 
& was levied on Negroes Beck & her 2 children Olly & Fanny. I know this negro 
called William BROOKFIELD to be the child Olly only by hearsay. Know that 
after Father paid this money & stoped the Execution that he took the negroes 
home & kept them until he let them go to Matamaskeet where her husband lived. 
I do not claim any interest in the Negroes Beck and her increase. 11 Oct 1855

Summons to Carteret Co. for James DAVIS, Elijah CANNADAY, Levi BELL, 
Elizabeth BACKMAN to appear and testify on behalf of the plaintiff in a case 
in which William BROOKFIELD is plaintiff and Jonathan STAUNTON is defendant. 
3 Apr 1855

William BROOKFIELD vs. Frederick P. STANTON: Notice to plaintiff that 
depositions will be taken on behalf of the defendant at the house of Ruth 
HARRIS in Beaufort, Carteret Co., on 3 Sept next. 29 Oct 1859
Attached: Order to Benjamin L. PERRY to take the deposition of Ruth HARRIS as 
to what she knows about a matter in which William BROOKFIELD is plaintiff and 
Jonathan STAUNTON is defendant. Apr 1859
Attached: Deposition taken by Benjamin L PERRY at the house of Ruth HARRIS in 
Beaufort, Carteret Co., NC, it being first affirmed according to law (she 
being a member of the Society of Friends commonly called Quakers)
Ruth HARRIS: States she is well acquainted with the parties of this suit, 
Jonathan STANTON and William BROOKFIELD. Wm. BROOKFIELD is the son of a negro 
woman (whose color is black) by the name of Olly & Olly is the daughter of 
old negro woman Beck who is also black. She knew Beck very well; she passed & 
was ever reputed to be the slave of John MCKIM. I have always heard it said 
that John MCKIM went off & left Beck behind. When MCKIM left, the Friends or 
Quakers took possession of her and put her out to labor & she served there to 
when she was put out as a slave, Beck continued to live with various persons 
as a slave until she was about to be sold when my father Owen STANTON & 
Frances MACE paid the debt for which she was to be sold & my father Owen 
STANTON & Francis MACE took her into possession she living with each of them 
for some time, after which she went to Hyde County. A long number of years 
ago, how long I cannot say, Benjamin MACE a son of Francis MACE went to Hyde 
Co. & brought back to Beaufort Beck & Fanny, & Olly & their children, 
classing them as slaves & hiring them out as such. Beck when she came back 
was sold into service & she was permitted to go back to Hyde Co.
I am now in my 74th year & am very feeble & in bad health. Im so permanently 
afflicted & subject to sudden attacks of disease that I am unable to travel & 
leave home. 
I do not know & never heard that Beck was born free or was ever emancipated.
3 Sept 1859

Order to James SLOAN to take the deposition of Benjamin MACE as to what he 
knows in a matter in which William BROOKFIELD is plaintiff and Jonathan 
STANTON is defendant. Apr 1860
Attached: Deposition taken by James SLOAN at the office of James T. MOREHEAD, 
Esqui in Greensboro, Guilford Co., NC
Benjamin MACE, age 53, residing in Guilford Co.: Know the plaintiff William 
BROOKFIELD. His grandmother is named Beck and his mother is named Olly. The 
mother and grandmother were slaves ever since I can recollect, and I am now 
53 years old. Beck was reputed to be the slave of John MCKIM, who I am 
informed removed to the state of Maryland. I do not know in whose custody she 
was left, or with whom she lived previous to her coming into possession of my 
father. I brought the plaintiff & his mother as slaves from Hyde County, but 
left his grandmother also a slave with her husband in Hyde under the care of 
her husband’s master, Jon DENSON. I brought them from Hyde about the year 
1835. I was sent after them by the agent of the Society of Friends for the 
purpose of sending them to a free state which was not done.
My father to whom Becky & Ollie belonged in the past permitted them to go and 
see Beck’s husband, whose master lived in Hyde. They were reputed to be my 
father’s slaves when they went to Hyde.
Beck and Olly were reputed to have been sold by the sheriff when I was quite 
young, and my father and Owen STANTON became the purchasers; they have been 
reputed to be slaves ever since I can recollect.
While in Hyde, Beck & Olly were in charge of some of the WESTON family, to 
the best of my recollection.
Beck and Ollie were under my father’s charge and protection after he became 
the purchaser from the sheriff to the best of my information and knowledge. 
12 Oct 1860

Order to James F. LEITH to take the deposition of William WINTON & John A. 
STOKESBURY as to what they know in a matter in which William BROOKFIELD is 
plaintiff and Jonathan STANTON is defendant. Date blank

Deposition taken by James F. LEITH in the courthouse of Hyde Co., NC
William WESTON: I knew the plaintiff William BROOKFIELD before he was carried 
away, I think about 18 or 20 years ago. I knew his mother well; her name was 
Olley. I have known her ever since 1818 until she was carried away about 18 
years ago. She was reputed to be the child of Rebecca SUTTON. I knew her 
[Rebecca SUTTON] first in 1818. She first came in 1818 from the town of 
Beaufort. I think she came with Isaac HELLON but I do not know for sure. She 
always lived as a free woman and acted for herself. She lived on my father’s 
land for several years & then lived on John ENSTON’s land. She acted for 
herself there also until she died. 
When she first came to Hyde he appeared about 30 years old. She brought 4 
children with her need Fanny, Olley, John, and David.
The mother of the plaintiff was 21 or 22 when the plaintiff was born; they 
were here about 5 years before the pltff was born. She married a man named 
Rewbin BROOKFIELD, a slave of Eli SMALLWOODs about 5 years after she came to 
Hyde.
The plaintiff was carried off by Benjamin MACE; he was not claimed as a 
slave; he said he carried him off because he was not doing well here and he 
would see him well off. The plaintiff was the first child of Olley. 12 Nov 
1859

Deposition taken by James F. LEITH in the courthouse of Hyde Co., NC
John A. STOKESBERRY: I have known the plaintiff William BROOKFIELD since he 
was born, about 30 years. His mother’s name was Olly SUTTON. I have known her 
ever since 1818. She was reported to be the child of Rebecca SUTTON; I first 
knew her in 1818.
The old woman the grandmother first came to Hyde with David HELLEN. She came 
from the town of Beaufort. She lived on the Samuel WESTON’s land as a free 
woman to herself; no one interfered with her. When she first came to Hyde Co. 
she appeared to be 35 or 40. She brought 4 children with her named Alley, 
David, John, and Fanny.
The mother of the plaintiff was 18 or 20 when he was born; I think about 5 
years after they came to Hyde. She was called the wife of Rueben BROOKFIELD, 
a slave belonging to Eli SMALLWOOD and married 5 or 6 years after she came to 
Hyde.
The plaintiff was taken off by a man named Ben MACE. He did not claim him as 
his slave but said that he carried him off to have him better dealt with.
The plaintiff was the first child of Olley, I think. 12 Nov 1859

Superior Court of Carteret County. In Oct 1853, before John S. BAILY, judge 
of the County came William BROOKFIELD, by G.S.ATTMORE and A.G. HUBBARD, his 
attorneys and brought his bill of complaint.
Below this: Summons for Jonathan STANTON to appear and answer William 
BROOKFIELD of a charge of trespass with force and arms, damage $1,000. 8 Oct 
1853
Sheriff of [Carteret] County returned writ with words “Executed…”, whereupon 
Jonathan STANTON by his attorneys J.M. BRYAN and R.S. DONNELL, comes and pled 
“Gen issue, the Plaintiff is a slave and cannot maintain this action, leave 
to add other pleas.”
Let a jury come on the 4th Mon. after the 4th Mon. of Mar, 1853, &c. At which 
time the defendant came with an affidavit that said:
That he cannot have fair trial in the County of Carteret on the grounds that 
the plaintiff’s cause is conducted by an influential member of the Society of 
Friends and that he & others have been actively engaged in obtaining the 
testimony for the plaintiff in this cause and is prejudicing the public mind 
as to the right of the plaintiff to his freedom and that the active Friends 
of the plaintiff have not only succeeded in prejudging the rightful claims of 
this affiant [the defendant] to hold the plaintiff as his slave, but have 
also created a prejudice in favor of the plaintiff, & that they are sustained 
in their prosecution of this suit for the plaintiff by the members of their 
society and their friends here who are numerous and influential. 16 May 1854.
Below this: Order to move suit to Craven Co. Copy sent to Craven Co. on 30 
Apr 1857

Superior Court of Carteret Co. 
On the 4th Monday after the 4th Monday of September 1853, William BROOKFEILD 
by his attorneys George S. ATTMORE and A.G. HUDNELL brought his suit against 
Johnathan STANTON as follow:
The humble petition of William BROOKFIELD shows that he is entitled to 
freedom & that he has been deprived thereof & is detained in a state of false 
imprisonment by Johnathan STANTON of Carteret Co., that he is desirous to sue 
out a writ of Trespass vi et arms [with force and arms] against STANTON for 
the purpose of asserting his right to freedom, but he is in a state of 
absolute penury & is therefore unable to provide a sufficient bond for the 
prosecution of his suit. 
Petitioner humbly prays that he may be allowed to prosecute his suit in forma 
pauperis [as a pauper] & that George S. ATMORE & A.G. HUBBARD may be assigned 
him as counsel.
Next page: William BROOKFIELD makes oath that he is not worth $5 except his 
wearing apparel., 26 Jul 1853
Below this: Order by Judge M.E. MANLEY allowing William BROOKFIELD to sue in 
forma pauperis, and assigning George S. ATMORE  & A.G. HUBBARD, Esqrs. as his 
attorneys.
Below this: Summons for Jonathan STANTON to appear and answer William 
BROOKFIELD of a charge of trespass with force and arms, damage $1,000. 8 Oct 
1853
Below this: Sheriff of [Carteret] County returned writ with words 
“Executed…”, whereupon Jonathan STANTON by his attorneys J.M. BRYAN and R.S. 
DONNELL, comes and pled “Gen issue, the Plaintiff is a slave and cannot 
maintain this action, leave to add other pleas.”
Spring term 1854: Ordered that case be moved to Craven Co., transcript sent 
18 Oct 1854

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by Levi 
BELL to plaintiff; includes 120 miles travel. Fall term 1857

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by 
Mitchell WHITE  to defendant; includes 68 miles travel. Spring term 1855

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by Levi 
BELL to plaintiff; includes 100 miles travel. Spring term 1860

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by Geo. 
DILL  to defendant; includes 76 miles travel. Fall term 1860

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by 
Thomas KENNEDY to plaintiff; includes 144 miles travel. Fall term 1859

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by B.L. 
PERRY  to defendant; includes 76 miles travel. Fall term 1860

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by John 
A. STOSBERRY to plaintiff; includes 230 miles travel. Fall term 1859

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by Wm. 
WESTON to plaintiff; includes 230 miles travel. Fall term 1859

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by Levi 
BELL to plaintiff; includes 100 miles travel. Fall term 1859

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by Benj. 
L. PERRY  to defendant; includes 78 miles travel. Fall term 1858

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by John 
A. STOKESBERRY to plaintiff; includes 230 miles travel. Fall term 1858

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by John 
A. STAKESBERRY to plaintiff; includes 230 miles travel. Spring term 1858

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by John 
A. STOKESBERRY to plaintiff; includes 230 miles travel. Fall term 1855

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by John 
A. STOKESBERRY to plaintiff; includes 230 miles travel. Spring term 1857

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by John 
A. STOKESBERRY to plaintiff; includes 230 miles travel. Spring term 1854

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by 
Mitchell WHITE  to defendant; includes 72 miles travel. Fall term 1854

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by B.L. 
PERRY  to defendant; includes 76 miles travel. Spring term 1860

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by Levi 
BELL to plaintiff; includes 100 miles travel. Fall term 1861

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by 
Thomas KENNEDY to plaintiff; includes 136 miles travel. Spring term 1860

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by 
William WESTON to plaintiff; includes 240 miles travel. Spring term 1860

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by Wm. 
WESTON to plaintiff; includes 234 miles travel. Spring term 1855

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by Wm. 
WESTON to plaintiff; includes 115 miles travel. Fall term 1856

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by John 
A. STOKESBERRY to plaintiff; includes 230 miles travel. Spring term 1856

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by 
Wm.WETSON to plaintiff; includes 300 miles travel. Spring term 1856

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by Levi 
BELL to plaintiff; includes 120 miles travel. Fall term 1856

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by Levi 
BELL to plaintiff; includes 120 miles travel. Spring term 1856

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by John 
A. STOKESBERRY to plaintiff; includes 230 miles travel. Fall term 1856

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by Levi 
BELL to plaintiff; includes 120 miles travel. Spring term 1857

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by John 
A. STOKESBERRY to plaintiff; includes 230 miles travel. Spring term 1855

Request sent by Jonathan STANTON to Mr. LEARY, Beaufort to issue a subpoena 
to D.M. BURCHAN, sheriff, for A.C. LATHAM of Craven Co. to summon George DILL 
in the case William BROOKFIELD vs. Johnathan STANTON. 15 Oct 1859

Craven Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by Levi 
BELL to plaintiff; includes 120 miles travel. Fall term 1858

Document that appears to be informal notes regarding costs in an unidentified 
case. At the top is a list of people with a series of numbers beside their 
names that appear to be dollar amounts. These people are the same people that 
were witnesses in the case Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON, so the dollar 
amounts are probably witness fees. Below this is a list of numbers with a 
total that is identified as “Cost Carteret [can’t read].” After that are some 
other items that represent court costs (e.g., transcript, filing, etc.] with 
amounts beside them. The people’s names at the top of the page are: Geo. DILL 
(shff), B.L. PERRY, Levi BELL, John A. STOKESBURY, Wm. WESTON, Thos. KENNEDY, 
Mitchell WHITE. Back: Fall term 1860

Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Notice to plaintiff by defendant that he 
will take depositions of witnesses in his behalf in the case at the office of 
James T. MOREHEAD in Greensboro, Guilford Co., on 12 & 13 Oct next. 28 Sept 
1869

Notice to plaintiff  A.G. HUBBARD, atty of William BROOKFIELD by 
defendant  Jonathan STANTON that on 19 & 20 Oct 1860 he will take depositions 
of witnesses at the house of Benjamin MACE in Greensboro, NC. No date; 
delivered to A.G. HUBBARD, atty on 8 Oct 1860

Notice to plaintiff  A.G. HUBBARD, atty of William BROOKFIELD by 
defendant  Jonathan STANTON that on 6 and 7 Apr next at the dwelling house of 
Ruth HARRIS in the town of Beaufort, NC that he will take depositions of 
witnesses in the case where William BROOKFIELD  is plaintiff and Jonathan 
STANTON is defendant. 24 Mar 1858

William BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Ordered by the court that defendant 
Jonathan STANTON be required to produce the plaintiff on Monday of the next 
term of this court. Spring term 1860

Notice to Jonathan STANTON by William BROOKFIELD (by his attorney) that on 
Mon 14 Nov next at the office of the clerk and master in equity for Carteret 
he will take the deposition of Levi BELL and others in a suit where STANTON 
is plaintiff and BROOKFIELD is defendant. [Note: This is how it reads. This 
appears to be a reversal of plaintiff and defendant]. 26 Oct 1859

William BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: In this case it is suggested that 
there is a diminution of the records; it is ordered by the court that the 
clerk of this court issue to the Clerk of Carteret Superior Court of Law 
commanding him to certify to this court a more full and complete record of 
the case. Oct 1856. [There is a second copy of this document later in the 
folder that more specifically gives the date 10 Oct 1856].

Notice to Jonathan STANTON by William BROOKFIELD (by his attorney) that on 
Sat the 12th of Nov next at the court house in Hyde Co., that he will proceed 
to taketh deposition of John A. STOKESBURY and Dr. William WESTON in a case 
where you are plaintiff and I am defendant. [Sic]. 26 Oct 1859

Carteret Co. Court—Wm. BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Witness charge by 
William WESTON to plaintiff; includes 230 miles travel. Spring term 1854

William BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: Jonathan STANTON makes oath that 
Benjamin MACE is a material witness for him in this trial and without him he 
cannot come safely to trial. By this witness he hopes to prove that the 
plaintiff & his grandmother and mother are slaves and that the grandmother of 
the plaintiff was the property of one MCKIM & that she was left in charge of 
the witness [MACE] father & was ever regarded as a slave, although the 
witness’ father was a Quaker & belonged to the Society of Friends. Witness 
has been summoned and STANTON has received a letter from him that he and his 
wife are both sick & that he is unable to leave home. 25 Apr 1860

Notice to A.G. HUBBARD, atty, from Jonathan STANTON that on 18 & 19 Oct Inst. 
at the home of Mrs. Elizabeth BACKMAN that he will take the deposition of 
witnesses in a case where William BROOKFIELD is plaintiff and STANTON is 
defendant. 2 Oct 1857

Summons to Wayne County for Thomas KENNEDY to appear and testify on behalf of 
William BROOKFIELD in a matter in which BROOKFIELD is plaintiff and Jonathan 
STANTON is defendant. 12 Sept 1859

William BROOKFIELD vs. Jonathan STANTON: At Spring term it was ordered that 
the clerk of Carteret Co. certify a more perfect record in the case and at 
the Fall term it was ordered that the present clerk certify a more perfect 
record. Issued 6 Jan 1857

Summons to Carteret Co. for Benjamin L. PERRY, Elizabeth BACKMAN, and James 
DAVIS, Sr to appear and testify on behalf of the defendant in a case where 
William BROOKFIELD is plaintiff and Jonathan STANTON is defendant. 13 Sept 
1859

Summons to Guilford Co. for Benjamin MACE to appear and testify on behalf of 
the Jonathan STANTON in a case where William BROOKFIELD is plaintiff and 
STANTON is defendant. 13 Sept 1859

Summons to Onslow Co. for Daniel HARRIS to appear and testify on behalf of 
the Jonathan STANTON in a case where William BROOKFIELD is plaintiff and 
STANTON is defendant. 2 Oct 1857

Summons to ______ Co. for John FRASURE to appear and testify on behalf of the 
Jonathan STANTON in a case where William BROOKFIELD is plaintiff and STANTON 
is defendant. 13 Oct 1856. [Back says executed by George DILL, who was 
sheriff of Carteret Co.]

Summons to Onslow Co. for Daniel HARRIS to appear and testify on behalf of 
the the defendant in a case where William BROOKFIELD is plaintiff and 
Jonathan STANTON is defendant. 13 Sept 1859

Summons to Craven Co. for Benjamin L. PERRY, Elizabeth BACKMAN, and James 
DAVIS, Sr to appear and testify on behalf of the defendant in a case where 
William BROOKFIELD is plaintiff and Jonathan STANTON is defendant. 25 Sept 
1855. [Note: Previously a summons issued to Carteret Co. for these witnesses. 
This was a form with the words “Craven County” pre-printed, so it might be 
that the clerk overlooked changing the name of the county].

Summons to Craven Co. for Benjamin L. PERRY, Elizabeth BACKMAN, and James 
DAVIS, Sr to appear before Elijah CANNADY to take the deposition of witnesses 
at the house of Elizabeth BACKMAN in the town of Beaufort on 111, 12, and 13 
Oct 1855 and testify on behalf of the defendant in a case where William 
BROOKFIELD is plaintiff and Jonathan STANTON is defendant. 25 Sept 1855 
[Again, this was on a pre-printed form. Some of the text was changed, but the 
county was not].

Summons to Onslow Co. for Daniel HARRIS to appear and testify on behalf of 
Jonathan STANTON in a case where William BROOKFIELD is plaintiff and STANTON 
is defendant. 16 Oct 1854. [Note: This was issued by the Clerk of Court at 
Beaufort, NC]

Summons to Craven Co. for George DILL to appear and testify on behalf of 
Jonathan STANTON in a case where William BROOKFIELD is plaintiff and STANTON 
is defendant. 15 Oct 1859

Summons to Hyde Co. for William WESTON to appear and testify on behalf of the 
plaintiff in a case where William BROOKFIELD is plaintiff and Jonathan 
STANTON is defendant. 13 Feb 1859

Summons to Carteret Co. for Jesse PIVER to appear and testify on behalf of 
Jonathan STANTON in a case where William BROOKFIELD is plaintiff and STANTON 
is defendant. 24 Mar 1857

Summons to Carteret Co. for Ruth HARRIS and Mitchel WHITE to appear and 
testify on behalf of Jonathan STANTON in a case where William BROOKFIELD is 
plaintiff and STANTON is defendant. 16 Oct 1854

Summons to Carteret Co. for Ruth HARRIS and Mitchel WHITE to appear and 
testify on behalf of Jonathan STANTON in a case where William BROOKFIELD is 
plaintiff and STANTON is defendant. 13 Sept 1859

Summons to Carteret Co. for Jesse PIVER to appear and testify on behalf of 
Jonathan STANTON in a case where William BROOKFIELD is plaintiff and STANTON 
is defendant. 13 Sept 1859

Summons to Carteret Co. for Shepherd W. BURCHAM to appear and testify on 
behalf of Jonathan STANTON in a case where William BROOKFIELD is plaintiff 
and STANTON is defendant. 11 Apr 1854

Summons to Carteret Co. for John FRAZIER to appear and testify on behalf of 
the the defendant in a case where William BROOKFIELD is plaintiff and 
Jonathan STANTON is defendant. 13 Sept 1859

Summons to Carteret Co. for James DAVIS, Elijah CANADY, Levi BELL, and 
Elizabeth BACKMAN to appear and testify on behalf of the the plaintiff in a 
case where William BROOKFIELD is plaintiff and Jonathan STANTON is defendant. 
13 Sept 1859

Summons to Hyde Co. for William WESTON and John STOKESBURY to appear and 
testify on behalf of the plaintiff in a case where William BROOKFIELD is 
plaintiff and Jonathan STANTON is defendant. 3 Apr 1855

Summons to Carteret Co. for Shepherd W. BURCHAM to appear and testify on 
behalf of he defendant in a case where William BROOKFIELD is plaintiff and 
Jonathan STANTON is defendant. 11 Apr 1854

Anderson HILL vs. Stephen WILLIS & O.P. STREET: Deposition of Alonzo JERKINS 
(Witness for O.P. STREET): Q. Do you know anything about a note by Stephen 
WILLIS & O.P. STREET, 22 May 1848 for $750 to Henderson HILL; state all you 
know. A. Note was for $750 dated May 22nd 1848, with interest from that date 
payable to Henderson HILL 2 yrs. after date and endorsed by him to me without 
recourse (I think). As soon as it was due, I sued upon it. After I sued & 
before the judgment was obtained, Mr. WILLIS gave me a negotiable note with 
John JACKSON as security, for $884.80. I accepted in payment of said note 
against Stephen WILLIS & O.P. STREET—I paid $10.80 costs which I charged to 
Mr. WILLIS & gave him credit for the net proceeds of the negotiable note & 
also the note of $750. I enclosed the note to Stephen WILLIS 2 Nov 1850 at 
Swift Cr. The note was signed by O.P. STREET & Stephen WILLIS. No date

O.P. STREET vs. S. WILLIS: Witness charge by J.G. ARTHUR charged to 
plaintiff. 6 Sept 60. [Note: There are 2 of these on the same page with same 
date]

O.P. STREET vs. S. WILLIS: Witness charge by J.R. STREET charged to 
plaintiff. 5 Sept 1860

O.P. STREET vs. S. WILLIS: Witness charge by B.C. HEATH charged to plaintiff. 
Includes 20 miles travel. Sept term 1860

O.P. STREET vs. S. WILLIS: Witness charge by N. WHITFORD charged to deft. 
Includes 32 miles travel. Sept term 1860

Deposition of Stephen E. STREET (Witness for S. WILLIS): Q. At the time S. 
WILLIS was building the houses in the river, in the Spring of 1853, where was 
he living? A. He was living at the place he was building—I boarded with him. 
Q. Did you ever know that S. WILLIS boarded with O.P. STREET? A: No!
X-exam by STREET: 
Q. What were you doing whilst boarding with Mr. WILLIS and how long did you 
stay there? A. I was teaching school and staid at Mr. WILLIS’ from Friday 
evening to Tuesday evening—I did that for about a fortnight or 3 weeks—During 
the time WILLIS—. Q. Where was Mr. WILLIS’ family while you were staying with 
S. WILLIS. A. I do not recollect—they did not stay at Mr. WILLIS’ house—if 
there was any accommodation for sleeping, there was not enough for more than 
me. Mr. WILLIS was not building more than 3 months—I don’t think Mr. WILLIS 
was quite finished building when he moved his family to the river. Q. Do you 
recollect Mr. WILLIS hiring a negro Patsey from O.P. STREET? I remember Mr. 
WILLIS having a girl Patsy in his possession which was reputed to O.P. 
STREET’s negro—I hired the same negro the year before from O.P. STREET—I 
agreed to pay $60 for her when I hired her. She was a very good field hand. 
Q. What do you think was the market value of the negro for a year? A. About 
$60. Q. Do you recollect Mr. WILLIS buying any property at Mr. STREETS’ venue 
in 1854? A. He bought a steer 3 hogs, & other articles, I think—His bill 
amounted to between $25 & $35. Not $35.
Exam by WILLIS: 
Q. What do you think a fair value for Patsy the year I hired her? a. $45 was 
a fair hire. 
No date

Oliver P. STREET vs. Stephen WILIS. 
Deposition of Jesse G. ARTHUR, witness for Oliver P. STREET: Q. do you know 
anything about O.P. STREET hiring a negro woman Patsy to Mr. Stephen WILLIS? 
A. I recollect hearing Mr. Stephen WILLIS say that he hired Patsy from O.P. 
STREET about.3 or 4 years ago I think—I heard Stephen WILLIS afterwards say 
that when he attempted to make a settlement with O.P. STREET that the charge 
for the negro was less than he anticipated that he expected to have been 
charged $60, but that it was only $40. Q. Do you recollect that about 6 or 7 
years ago that Mr. WILLIS & his family consisting of Mrs. WILLIS & Miss Jane 
ARTHUR came to stay at O.P. STREET’s house? A. I do! Mr. WILLIS had sold his 
plantation and while he was building at another place, he & his family went 
to O.P. STREET’s house—I do not know how long they stayed there, but I think 
a month or two—During a portion of the time, Mr. WILLIS ate at the place 
where he was building—Mrs. WILLIS family remained at O.P. STREET’s all the 
time he was building. Q. Do you recollect whether Miss ARTHUR (your sister) 
was very sick at O.P. STREET’s house? A. I do! She was very sick for a month 
or so—I think she was taken sick at her brother’s John ARTHUR’s. Q. What was 
the relationship between Miss ARTHUR and Mr. WILLIS? A. She was the niece of 
Mr. WILLIS’ wife and made Mr. WILLIS’ house her home & was supported or so I 
believe by Mr. WILLIS. Q. What would be a reasonable charge for board in the 
country at such a house as Mr. STREET’s? A. $8 a month would be a reasonable 
price.
X-exam by WILLIS
Q. Do you recollect my telling you that O.P. STREET had no title to the negro 
Patsy that it was in him WILLIS, and if O.P. STREET would settle with him he 
would allow him a fair hire for the negro? (Objected to). A. I recollect Mr. 
WILLIS say that he had a title to all Mr. STREET’s property. Q. Do you know 
whether Jane ARTHUR was own woman & transacted her own business at the time 
she staid at O.P. STREET’s? A. She was 21 years of age—went where she 
pleased, and looked upon Stephen WILLIS’s house as her home. She did not stay 
at Stephen WLLIS’s house all the time, but went to my house & James ARTHUR’s 
& others.
Ex. by STREET:
Q. Do you mean to say that Miss ARTHUR had different houses or went from 
place to place visiting? A. Her home was considered to be at WILLIS’ and she 
visited from house to house at her pleasure. 
Deposition of James G. ARTHUR (witness for O.P. STREET): Q. Do you recollect 
anything about a horse trade between Stephen WILLIS and O.P. STREET? A. About 
12 or 13 years ago, Mr. WILLIS told me that he had traded horses with Mr. 
STREET—that he was to give Mr. STREET $50 in addition for the difference in 
horses. Q. Did not your sister Jane ARTHUR live with Mr. Stephen WILLIS & 
consider it as her home? A. She did live with Stephen WILLIS after the death 
of my mother & I considered it her home. Q. Did you pay Mr. WILLIS for me a 
certain sum of money of goods bought at my vendue? A. I did—I paid Stephen 
WILLIS $35 the balance of the a/c & took his receipt for the same (receipt 
exhibited). Q. Do you recollect whether Mr. WILLIS bought a bed at STREET’s 
vendue? A. He bid off 2, I think, one he bid off S.E. STREET.
X-exam by WILLIS
Q. At & before the time that Stephen WILLIS moved down to the ferry, was not 
Jane ARTHUR of age and did she not transact her own business? A. She was of 
age, but I do not know about her transacting her own business. Q. Do you 
recollect your sister Julia’s being one of O.P. STREET’s family and of her 
being taken sick and carried to Stephen WILLIS’ home? A. I recollect her 
staying at Mr. STREET’s & her being sick at Mr. WILLIS’. I do not recall how 
long.
Exam by STREET
Q. How old was your sister at the time she staid at Mr. STREET’s? A. She was 
not of age and had a guardian—Michael ARTHUR.
Deposition of John D. MAY (witness for Stephen WILLIS): Q. Please state any 
circumstances that record when O.P. STREET placed a claim for hire of negro 
girl Patsy in your hands as an officer for collection. A. I was a deputy 
sheriff, it being about 2 years ago and before the suit in this case was 
served, when O.P. STREET handed me a claim for $70 to collect out of S. 
WILLIS. I told him that $60 was the limit of a magistrate’s jurisdiction over 
claims—He then remarked that the claim was out for full $70—as he had 
received from Mr. WILLIS the negro about a month thereabouts before the year 
ended which would reduce the amount. I do not recollect whether he credited 
the a/c.

Writ of replevin based on complaint by Francis S. BANGERT by Sylvester 
BANGERT his next friend that Daniel, a negro boy of a yellow complexion & of 
the age of about 5 years of age has been his property within two years next & 
that he has been deprived of possession of the negro by the defendant F.W. 
PARKS. The slave is of the value of $100. Sheriff is ordered to take 
possession of the negro and return him to the defendant unless the defendant 
posts a bond for $800 with approved security. Sheriff also ordered to summon 
the defendant to appear at the next term of court and answer the complaint by 
BANGERT. 19 Apr 1860. Back: Executed and boy Daniel taken and delivered to 
F.S. BANGERT, 19 Apr 1860

Bond by Francis BANGERT with S. BANGERT to perform the final judgement in the 
writ of replevin. 19 Apr 1860

Bond for $6000 by Nancy SPENCER to C.V. SWAN to sell him the following 
slaves: Betty, 45; Rhoda, 20; Abram, 10; Orkra, 5; together with all increase 
of Betty and Rhoda. 13 Dec 1851

Nancy SPENCER vs. C.V. SWAN: 
Deposition of John IVES: Q. Do you know anything about the contract between 
Nancy SPENCER & C.V. SWAN? A. I didn’t hear the bargain made but I heard Mr. 
SWAN read the bonds and witnessed the execution of the bonds—Mr. SWAN read 
that he [can’t read] to give $1200 for the negroes and was to pay the 
interest ($72) for 15 years, and if at the end of 15 years he should pay the 
principal & interest then she or her heirs was to make him or his heirs a 
title to the negroes, and if he should fail to pay, then she was to take the 
negroes back again—There were 4 negroes: Betty, Rhoda, Abram, & Orka—Betty 
was some 45 or 50 years old—Rhoda was about 20 years old—Abram was about 10 
or 11 years old—& Orka was about 7 or 8 years old—The boys and the young 
woman were very likely. Q. What was Nancy SPENCER’s condition of mind & body? 
A. She has a very poor mind—she can read a little, but can’t write—she is 
about 55 years of age—At the time she executed these bonds her family was 
sick and she was pushed for something to eat—sometimes she has very little 
mind and again she has a tolerably good mind.
X exam by defendant
Q. What kin are you to Nancy SPENCER? I am her son-in-law—I married her 
daughter—my wife & one other child are the only children she has. Q. How old 
was she when these bonds were executed? A. She was 47 or 48 years of age—she 
attended to her own business. Q. Was she ever crazy?A. No! but she at times 
talked very foolishly, and reaped up such things as she might have talked—
sometimes she would say one thing and do another—At the time of executing 
these bonds she had not good sense—she pretended to farm. I lived almost 10 
or 15 miles from her. Q. How did Mrs. SPENCER get these Negroes? A. I heard 
her say that she bought the mother & the girl at her husband’s vendue. Q. Did 
anyone advise you to go & live with Mrs. SPENCER before the selling of these 
negroes? A. Mr. SWAN advised me to do it at his house—I refused to do it. Q. 
Do you swear positively when Mr. SWAN read the bonds he read anything about 
15 years? A. Yes! He read it at Mr. SWAN’s house and I heard nothing about 
the lifetime—I objected to the sale, but Mrs. SPENCER said the negroes were 
hers and she would do as she pleased—I did not object to the price, but only 
to the manner of making the bargain, that is, by bond, instead of notes with 
security or cash—Mr. SWAN lived about 2 miles off—Mrs. SPENCER had as good 
sense then at the time of the bargain as at any time I have known her—about 
3  years ago I sold the land on which Cason SPENCER lived and got Mrs. 
SPENCER to join the sale, she having a life estate in the land—she did not 
have good sense and never had since I have known her—my idea of craziness is 
when a person might be confined—and of insanity when a person has not good 
sense. I traded with Mrs. SPENCER myself although I did to think she had good 
sense, but I thought that a person might trade with one wanting good sense if 
he did to impose on that one—Mrs. SPENCER carried the bond to her brother 
Samuel JONES, and he said if she would come & complain to him he would make 
SWAN give the negroes up—I can read some words of writing besides my own 
name—and I can write my own name.
Re-exam by complainant:
Q. What did Mr. SWAN advise you about living wth Mrs. SPENCER? A. he said 
that the negroes wouldn’t mind her, and she would soon be suffering, and I 
had better go & attend to them—she had very little property if any besides 
these negroes—that is, a little household & kitchen furniture. 
20 Oct 1860

Notice to Mrs. Nancy SPENCER from C.V. SWAN that he will apply to the Court 
of Equity at Fall Term 1860 to dispauper her and to compel her to give a 
prosecution bond in a case where she is plaintiff and he is defendant. 8 Oct 
1860

Oath by William TURNER & John R. RIGGS that they have heard that Nancy 
SPENCER in the case Nancy SPENCER vs. C.V. SWAN bought a tract of land from 
C.V. SWAN for $300 and that she has a deed for the same. They heard it 
reported very generally that she bought the land and that they live in the 
neighborhood of Nancy SPENCER. 27 Oct 1860

Notice by C.V. SWAN to Nancy SPENCER that on 19 & 20 Oct 1860 he will take 
depositions at the law office of Frederick C. ROBERTS, Esq. in New Berne, NC 
in the case where she is plaintiff and he is defendant. 8 Oct 1860

Notice to Mrs. Nancy SPENCER that she is to produce before Frederick C. 
ROBERTS, ESq. at his law office in New Berne, NC on 19 & 20 inst. a certain 
deed from C.V. SWAN to her for a tract of land containing 100 ac. in Craven 
Co. on the NS of Bay R. & WS Chapel Cr. dated 14 Jan 1859. 8 Oct 1860

Summons for Louisa MILLER and John IVES to appear at the law office of F.C. 
ROBERTS in the town of Newbern on 19 & 20 of October next to testify on 
behalf of the defendant in a matter wherein Nancy SPENCER is plaintiff and 
C.V. SWANN is defendant. Apr 1860

Nancy SPENCER vs. Constantine V. SWAN: Notice to Constantine SWAN from Nancy 
SPENCER (by her atty J.W. BRYAN) that she will take depositions in the case 
in her behalf at the law office of Frederick C. ROBERTS, Esqr. in the town of 
Newbern on 19 & 20 Oct 1860. 2 Oct 1860

Nancy SPENCER vs. C.V. SWANN: Witness fee charged by John IVES to 
complainant, includes 80 miles travel. Fall term 1860

Nancy SPENCER vs. C.V. SWANN: Witness fee charged by John R. RIGGS to 
defendant, includes 54 miles travel. Spring term 1861

Notice to Mrs. Nancy SPENCER by C.V. SWANN by his atty A.G.HUBBARD that he 
will take depositions on 8 & 9 Apr next at the law office of Frederick C. 
ROBERTS in New Berne, NC in a matter in which N. SPENCER is plaintiff and 
SWANN is defendant. 29 Mar 1861. Attached: Summons for John R. RIGGS & Mrs. 
L. MILLER to appear and testify on 8 & 9 Apr next at the law office of F.C. 
ROBERTS in Newbern  on behalf of the defendant in a matter where Nancy 
SPENCER is complainant and C.V. SWANN is defendant. Oct. 1860. Attached: 
Depositions taken by Frederick C. ROBERTS, Clerk & Master in Equity in 
Newbern on 8 Apr 1861. Defendant only was present, although complainant had 
been notified.
Deposition of John R. RIGGS: [All testimony is in response to questions by 
defendant]: I am 51 years old—I reside in Bay River in Craven Co. I am a 
farmer, and I am and have had a long acquaintance with the parties of this 
suit. 
In the years 1850 & 1851 I lived within two miles of the complainant in this 
suit—I married her sister and was well & Intimately acquainted with Nancy 
SPENCER. During 1850 & 1851 and all the years I’ve known her she has a been a 
woman of ordinarily good mind. She always attended to her own business and 
was prudent in the management of her business. She lived economically and she 
was never reputed to be a woman of weak mind—she managed er affairs 
prudently. 
The complainant bought [the slaves] Betty and Rhoda at her deceased husband’s 
vendue, and the other slaves mentioned were born after her purchase—I do not 
know what she gave for them.
[Besides the slaves], she owned the dower in her deceased husbands’ land—she 
cultivated the land before she contracted to sell the negroes, but afterwards 
she sold her dower in the land—After selling her negroes, she moved to a 
little place belonging to the defendant—having a comfortable, warm house, and 
cultivated a garden & potato patch. Her family consisted of herself and 
daughter—living very cheap in that neighborhood and she and her daughter 
could have lived on $72 per annum, with the little cultivation of the land of 
defendants that she moved to, which was very small. 
If [the negroes] supported themselves [before she sold them] it was as much 
as they did—she managed the negroes badly and exercised no control over them.
In 1851, Betty was 46 or 47 years old
In 1851, Rhoda was 18 or 20 years old
in 1851, Abram was 6 or 7 years old
In 1851, Okra was 3 or 4 years old
I think $1200 was a full & fair price for the negroes in 1851, and that the 
bargain was good on her part—for at the rates that negroes were hiring at the 
time & am satisfied these negroes would not have hired for the interest of 
$1200. Putting the four together I don’t think they would have hired for more 
than their victuals & clothes.
During that time, Rhoda was not a healthy negro. Heard that she was afflicted 
with rheumatism—the others were generally healthy as far as I know.
Before Nancy SPENCER bargained to sell the negroes to Mr. SWAN, I met her and 
she told me that she had tried to sell Rhoda to her brother Sam JONES, but 
that he refused to buy her—she said they were getting too troublesome and she 
intended selling them all to the defendant for $1200—When she made these 
remarks she was in a good mind and health as she ever was.
I have not known of any misfortune or calamity calculated to distract the 
mind of the defendant.
I think that slave value was depreciated in value in 1851..
Deposition of Stephen PAGE: [All testimony is in response to questions by 
defendant]: I am 41 years of age—I live in Newbern—I am a dealer in slaves 
and was a dealer in slaves in 1850 & 1851
I think that $1200 was a pretty fair price [for the slaves Betty, Rhoda, 
Abram, & Ockra] in the year 1851, as they were selling at that time. 
9 Apr 1861

Answer of Constantine V. SWAN to the Bill of Complaint of Nancy SPENCER: 
Defendant reserving his answer for the parts of the complaint that are 
material. He admits the complainant has the legal title in the 4 negroes 
Betty, Rhoda, Abram, and Orkra, of the ages set forth in the complaint, but 
denies that the complainant, at the time of the execution of the bond for 
title, was in any enfeebled or impaired condition of health or suffering 
under any affliction or trouble or in any state of mental incapacity to make 
her an easy victim of imposition; on the contrary, she was a woman of sound, 
ordinary good mind, at the time of the transaction; she and her family were 
well, and if she was in any straightened circumstances it was the result of 
her own indolence and want of control over her servants who were unwilling to 
work. It is not true that the defendant took advantage of any condition of 
pecuniary need, anxiety, or distress of mind or docile infirmity to urge upon 
her any disposition of the slaves. Nor is it true that any confidential 
relationship existed between him and the complainant, nor was she in the 
habit o consulting him or he in the habit of giving her advice about her 
business, he never made an overture or advance to her for the purchase of the 
negroes mentioned in the bill, and all that was done by him toward the 
purchase was upon her earnest offer, several time repeated,. About the time 
set forth in the Bill or shortly before, the complainant came to the 
defendant’s house and offered to sell him the negroes, the defendant declined 
to purchase, alleging his inability at that time to pay the sum demanded, 
whereupon she said that she would make him able that she did not want the 
principal money, but only wished the interest paid thereon during her 
lifetime and the principal could be paid at her death to her heirs or 
Executors, this proposition the defendant declined to accede to, shortly 
thereafter the complainant came again to the ouse of the defendant in company 
with her son-in-law John IVES, and renewed her offer to sell the Negroes. 
Defendant again declared to the complaint his inability to make the purchase 
and he advised her either to keep the Negroes and make them work on her farm 
and support her and themselves or else to see her brother Samuel JONES who 
was a man of ample means and sell them to him; she replied that she had 
repeatedly offered them to her brother and he would only give her a thousand 
dollars for them which she thought too little, and she then offered them to 
this defendant for $1400, the bond to be executed in the same form as those 
referred to. Defendant refused to give $1400, but offered her $1200 and it 
was agreed between them that the defendant should execute to the complainant 
a bond for $2400 dated 15 Dec 1851, to be void if defendant pay or cause to 
be paid the sum of $72 per year and at her death to her heirs,e tc. within 
one year the sum of $1200; she on her part executed a bond to defendant for 
$6000, same date, void if she, her heirs, etc. made a sufficient conveyance 
of he slaves with their increase. At the time of the bonds, defendant was of 
perfect mind and memory, the instruments were carefully read to her and 
thoroughly understood by her, this defendant used no inducement to persuade 
her. Defendant paid $72 annually and took immediate possession of he negroes. 
Although the condition of the bond was that he was not to pay the $1200 until 
her death, he has not failed to meet her request for advancements of the 
principal and on 15 Dec 1857 she had received $432 for the interest and 
$214.07 of he principal, and on 14 Jan 1852 she received $300 more. No 
arrangement or understanding existed between him and John IVES to defraud or 
mislead the complainant; IVES is not an illiterate man as alleged in the 
bill, but that he is a sensible shrewd and, writes quite well as seen from 
his attestation, and had the interest of his mother-in-law entirely at heart. 
The complainant was so well satisfied with the bargain that she changed her 
place of residence and came to live near the defendant and rented to him her 
old place and she remained residing near defendant about 4 years, apparently 
contented; about 2 years ago last January she removed to Broad Creek and 
about a year ago she returned and came to this defendants house and stated to 
him that her son-in-law John IVES and one Watson MILLER have turned her out 
of her home and begged defendant to let her have a house to live in; this 
defendant at once fitted up a house in good style for her and told her she 
might live there her lifetime without a dollar of rent. She professed to be 
very comfortable and to feel very grateful. She planted a crop and this 
defendant ploughed and worked the land for her without any charge. After 
having applied to a lawyer in 1858 to file a bill, she expressed to the Rev. 
Mr. ALBRITTON, a respectable clergyman, as being perfectly satisfied with the 
bargain and that she would not have attempted to file the bill if she had not 
been forced to by persons whom she named. Defendant goes on to say that the 
value of “this kind of property” was much depreciated at the time of the 
bargain and would not have hired for the amount defendant paid per annum; he 
denies any undue influence over complainant or any attempt to defraud. He 
also denied that he mis-read any of the bond to the complainant and John 
IVES. Defendant also denies that he is in an embarrassed condition. On the 
contrary, he has ample means and is abundantly able to meet all his 
liabilities and meet any just claim the complainant has upon him. Defendant 
denies that the complainant is a pauper as she alleges in the bill; she is 
the owner of a tract of land worth $300 and the bonds are good and valid in 
law and equity. 
Item #2 of complaint: Defendant admits it
Items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: Defendant has sufficiently answered them. Defendant 
denies all manner of fraud, combination, etc. Prays for dismissal.17 Mar 1860

Oath by Nancy SPENCER that she is not worth $25 in the world except her 
wearing apparel. 9 Nov 1860. Below this: Petition of Nancy SPENCER that 
Constantine V. SWAN taking advantage of the [can’t read], ignorance and 
feeble both in body & mind of petitioner hath obtained & taken into his 
possession negroe slaves the property & estate of petitioner and wrongfully 
holds the same. Petitioner has not commenced any suit against him being 
unable to carry the cause. Petitions to be able to prosecute her suit in 
forma paupery & that James W. BRYAN be assigned to her as Counsel. Below 
this: Oath by James W. BRYAN that he believes the suit hath good cause of 
action. 23 Jan 1869. Below this: Permission by petitioner to prosecute her 
suit free of charge. No date

Bill of complaint of Nancy SPENCER against Constantine V. SWAN:
Nancy SPENCER [Oratrix] shows that she is the owner of 4 negro slaves, Betty, 
aged 45-50; Rhoda, aged 25-27; Abram, a boy, aged 16; Orkra, a boy, aged 13, 
and their increase. She has never more than an ordinary understanding and has 
been greatly enfeebled & impaired by sickness and trouble, and is illiterate, 
& is unskilled in reading and writing and at times is but little if at all 
removed from strict legal incapacity of mind.
In the fall of 1851 having a very sick family all of whom were prostrate with 
sickness, and being herself greatly disturbed in mind and sick in body from 
her long and continued watching, nursing, & anxiety and her negroes also 
being sick & unable to render her any service, oratrix became exceedingly 
reduced and straightened for the means of support for herself and family and 
all these causes operating upon her feeble mind and sick body nearly “drove 
her to distraction” and in this state and condition she applied to 
Constantine V. SWAN, her neighbor and Justice of the Peace for Craven Co. who 
professed great kindness for her & offered his services to her to aid her, & 
in whom oratrix had great confidence & whom she believed to be her friend for 
advice, and SWAN, who was anxious to own the negroes persuaded her to sell 
them to her & in that way she could easily relieve her wants, all of which 
after many separate and entreaties, oratrix refused to do, being unwilling to 
part with the negroes, which was all the property she owned, and she was 
greatly attached to the negroes, having raised them; SWAN, nothing daunted, 
but believing oratrix could not hold out much longer , and saying he was the 
friend of oratrix and sympathized with her deeply, suggested an arrangement 
by which the negroes could yield an adequate support, and at the same time 
oratrix could retain the title and comfort of her property and oratrix would 
not be compelled to part with her negroes. Whether she consented to this she 
cannot say, because shortly after, she became so distressed in body and min 
on account of her affliction that she was deprived of her right mind. Oratrix 
believes that SWAN purposely avoided letting any person know what he was 
doing who could befriend oratrix, but made his arrangements with John IVES, 
who himself is very illiterate. He made two bonds, one he executed himself & 
required John IVES to witness whereby he bound himself for $2400 to pay 
oratrix $72 per year during her life and at her death to pay the full sum of 
$1200. The other bond was executed by oratrix and witnessed also by John 
IVES, and bound oratrix for a sum that she does not know to make title to the 
slaves when the $1200 was paid. When she signed the bond she was not in her 
right mind, and nothing knew, although she is advised that SWAN used every 
persuasion he could bring to bear & reminding oratrix of her distress & 
helpless condition & that your oratrix & family would come to want & 
suffering if oratrix did not sign the same, and she believes in her distress 
that she would have signed anything he might have required her to do.
Oratrix believes that SWAN took an undue and fraudulent advantage of the 
helplessness & ignorance of oratrix & defrauded her of her said negroes, for 
that upon the execution of the bonds SWAN took into his own possession all of 
the slave & ha continued to hold them, and paid oratrix $72 per year when any 
one of the slaves would have hired for nearly that sum, and the slaves if 
fairly sold would bring the sum of $3500. Oratrix also says that when John 
IVES (being unable to read) asked that the bond be read to him, that SWAN 
mis-read the bond, and said if SWAN did not pay principal that slaves would 
go to the heirs of oratrix, but oratrix has been informed that there is no 
such provision in the bond. Oratrix further says that if she had been in her 
right mind she could never have agreed to strip herself and children of all 
the property she owned & possessed, and that instead of alleviating her 
distress & wants through the aid of the defendant, have adopted by his 
instrumentality  the only course that could and would eventually bring them 
all to suffering and want. Upon ascertaining how SWAN had treated oratrix, 
she remonstrated with SWAN, reminding him of her ignorance, friendlessness 
and forlorn condition & destitution, hoping thereby that he would relent & 
consent to surrender her negroes to her, but her entreaties have been in 
vain, and she would long ago, but for her poverty and helplessness have 
sought the aid of the court, but she feared SWAN, she being a lone and 
helpless widow, & also advised not to incur his displeasure as he would 
greatly injure your oratrix and oppress her & her family. Oratrix has been 
informed that SWAN is greatly embarrassed in his fortunes, and believes that 
at her death he will not be able to pay the sum of $1200 for the slaves, he 
having given no security to his bond. She also believes the bond from her is 
fraudulent and void, and he should be made to surrender it.
Oratrix has been advised by her friends to sue SWAN to set aside the 
fraudulent agreement & recover the negroes, but after several attempts to do 
so, oratrix by her extreme poverty, ignorance, and helplessness was unable to 
produce the necessary security & aid to prosecute the suit, and even now, has 
been compelled to sue as a pauper in this court. SWAN hearing that oratrix 
intended to sue him came to oratrix sometime since and said that he would 
settle oratrix on a small tract of land, but what was the character and tenor 
of his proposition or agreement oratrix is utterly ignorant & has no 
knowledge of, as oratrix is of a very weak & feeble mind, with no education, 
and SWAN never gave oratrix any deed or paper about the matter, but believes 
that the whole matter was but a fraudulent contrivance on the part of SWAN to 
prevent oratrix from suing for the slaves, & to quiet and appease the justly 
indignant feelings of your oratrix so naturally excited in one so feeble, 
ignorant, and helpless on account of the fraud & circumvention practiced upon 
her in depriving her of her negroes.
Oratrix hopes that SWAN would have complied with the reasonable requests of 
oratrix & surrender the slaves, as in equity and conscience he ought to have 
done. But SWAN combines and confederates with others refuses to do so. 
Requests that SWAN be called to answer:
1.	Whether he did not obtain from oratrix a bond to make title to him, for 
her slaves Betty, Rhoda, Abram, and Orkra & their increase after payment 
to her or at her death of $1200?
2.	Whether defendant did not give a bond?
3.	Whether defendant was not desirous and did not attempt to purchase 
slave & your oratrix refuse the same?
4.	Whether oratrix is not very illiterate & of feeble min & whether 
oratrix can read or write?
5.	Whether oratrix in the Fall of 1851 had not a very sick & distressed 
family, whether oratrix at that time was not herself in a very distressed 
& feeble condition & suffering for the necessity of life, & did apply to 
defendant for aid & advice & whether defendant did not advise oratrix to 
sell her slaves & upon refusal whether at the same time the defendant did 
not advise oratrix to give him the bond to make title to him of her 
slaves, & he to give bond to oratrix, whether when she signed the bond she 
was in her right mind and what was the condition in body & mind at that 
time; whether the defendant did not negotiate in the premises with John 
IVES; whether Jon IVES was not an illiterate man; whether the defendant 
did not entirely read the bond given to oratrix by defendant and to John & 
whether the condition on the bond are the same as those read by defendant 
to John IVES? 
6.	Whether the sales are not worth $1500 & if not, what are they worth?
7.	Whether the hire of the slaves was not worth more than $72 per annum?
8.	Whether the defendant did not profess and represent himself to be to 
your oratrix friend & whether your oratrix had not great confidence in the 
defendant? 
Oratrix also asks that defendant make answer and that an account may be taken 
of the hires, profits, & increase of the slaves and that the slaves be 
surrendered & delivered to oratrix and oratrix quieted in the possession & 
title thereof, and that bonds be surrendered and the contract and agreement 
be set aside.
Requests a subpoena be directed to SWAM commanding him to appear and answer 
the bill of complaint. Back: Copy of bond by SWAN, 15 Dec 1851, witnessed by 
John IVES.
Filed 30 Jan 1860

Civil Actions brought by “colored persons” against Old Dominion Steamship 
Company		1885

Lewis HOBBS vs. The Old Dominion Steamship Co.} Motion before clerk
Geo. W. WHITE one of the attys. in the action moves to amend the complaint 
and summons in this case to reduce the amount demanded in the complaint from 
$1000 to $475 in accordance with the statute as brought forward, Sec 272 of 
the Code. 
Motion allowed. 18 Nov 1885

Renie MOORE vs. The Old Dominion Steamship Co} Judgment
This action coming on to be tried and being tried before GRAVES—Judge—and a 
jury, and the jury having found all the issues in favor of the defendant The 
Old Dominion Steamship Company. It is therefore adjudged that the defendant 
go without day. J.A. GRAVES, Judge presiding. Fall term 1886

Henrietta MOORE vs. The Old Dominion Steamship Co} Judgment
This action coming on to be tried and being tried before GRAVES—Judge—and a 
jury, and the jury having found all the issues in favor of the defendant The 
Old Dominion Steamship Company. It is therefore adjudged that the defendant 
go without day. J.A. GRAVES, Judge presiding. Fall term 1886

Abram PERRY vs. The Old Dominion Steamship Co} Judgment
This action coming on to be tried and being tried before GRAVES—Judge—and a 
jury, and the jury having found all the issues in favor of the defendant The 
Old Dominion Steamship Company. It is therefore adjudged that the defendant 
go without day. J.A. GRAVES, Judge presiding. Fall term 1886

Henry MOORE vs. The Old Dominion Steamship Company: Answer
[Note: This is in a printed booklet. The name of the defendant and filing 
date are handwritten in. The articles in this answer correspond to articles 
in a complaint in a document below].
I.	Defendant admits it is a corporation existing under the laws of the State 
of Delaware.
II.	Defendant admits the allegations in the 2nd article of the complaint
III.	Allegations in the 3rd article are not denied.
IV.	Defendant believes that the allegations in the 4th article are not true, 
and says that the facts are hereinafter set forth.
V.	Defendant believes that the articles in the 5th article of the complaint 
are untrue, and says the facts are hereinafter set forth.
VI.	Defendant believes that the allegations in the 6th article, that the 
plaintiff was charged with theft is untrue, and further denies that the 
plaintiff has been damaged and wronged in his reputation.
VII.	The defendant denies the allegations in the 7th article
VIII.	The defendant denies the allegations in the 8th article.
The defendant states that the plaintiff and a large number of other colored 
persons were passengers on the defendant’s Steamer “Shenandoah” from 
Elizabeth City to Newbern, on a special contract and agreement that the 
passengers should occupy a particular part of the Steamer during the voyage—
and pay a reduced price—that a short time before the Steamer reached Newbern, 
the Captain was informed that a package of goods—stored in the part of the 
Steamer occupied by the plaintiff and the passengers under contract had been 
broken open, and a part of the goods taken, by some unknown persons during 
the voyage—the Captain examined the package and found it broken open and it 
appeared that part of the contents had been removed—the Captain informed the 
passengers, among them the plaintiff—and immediately upon his arrival at 
newbern—he sent for and informed a policeman that all of the passengers 
denied any knowledge of the breaking or goods being removed from the package—
and said they were willing that the matter be inquired into, and the person 
who had broken the package (if there was such a person) be detected—plaintiff 
and other passengers remained on board the Steamer a short time of their own 
will and voluntarily, offered to open the baggage or packages they had with 
them and exhibit to the Captain and policeman. All packages were opened, and 
contents displayed voluntarily, with no force or compulsion. There was no 
charge of theft made against any of the passengers. (Document reiterates that 
bags were searched without any complaint by passengers). Defendant demands 
judgment that it go without day and for costs as may be proper. s/GREEN & 
STEVENSON, attys for defendant
Filed 4 Nov 1885

Lewis HOBBS vs. The Old Dominion Steamship Company: Answer
This is an exact copy of the previous document, also in a printed booklet 
with the defendant’s name and the date handwritten in.

Abram PERRY vs. The Old Dominion Steamship Company: Answer
This is an exact copy of the previous document, also in a printed booklet 
with the defendant’s name and the date handwritten in.

Samuel BRYANT vs. The Old Dominion Steamship Co} Judgment
This action coming on to be tried and being tried before GRAVES—Judge—and a 
jury, and the jury having found all the issues in favor of the defendant The 
Old Dominion Steamship Company. It is therefore adjudged that the defendant 
go without day. J.A. GRAVES, Judge presiding. Fall term 1886

Amos WILLIAMS vs. The Old Dominion Steamship Co} Judgment
This action coming on to be tried and being tried before GRAVES—Judge—and a 
jury, and the jury having found all the issues in favor of the defendant The 
Old Dominion Steamship Company. It is therefore adjudged that the defendant 
go without day. J.A. GRAVES, Judge presiding. Fall term 1886

Ellen SPARROW vs. The Old Dominion Steamship Co} Judgment
This action coming on to be tried and being tried before GRAVES—Judge—and a 
jury, and the jury having found all the issues in favor of the defendant The 
Old Dominion Steamship Company. It is therefore adjudged that the defendant 
go without day. J.A. GRAVES, Judge presiding. Fall term 1886

Samuel BRYANT vs. The Old Dominion Steamship Co.} Motion before clerk
Geo. W. WHITE one of the attys. in the action moves to amend the complaint 
and summons in this case to reduce the amount demanded in the complaint from 
$1000 to $475 in accordance with the statute as brought forward, Sec 272 of 
the Code. 
Motion allowed. 18 Nov 1885

Amos WILLIAMS vs. The Old Dominion Steamship Co.} Motion before clerk
Geo. W. WHITE one of the attys. in the action moves to amend the complaint 
and summons in this case to reduce the amount demanded in the complaint from 
$1000 to $475 in accordance with the statute as brought forward, Sec 272 of 
the Code. 
Motion allowed. 18 Nov 1885

Renie MOORE vs. The Old Dominion Steamship Co.} Motion before clerk
Geo. W. WHITE one of the attys. in the action moves to amend the complaint 
and summons in this case to reduce the amount demanded in the complaint from 
$1000 to $475 in accordance with the statute as brought forward, Sec 272 of 
the Code. 
Motion allowed. 18 Nov 1885

Harriet vs. The Old Dominion Steamship Co.} Motion before clerk
Geo. W. WHITE one of the attys. in the action moves to amend the complaint 
and summons in this case to reduce the amount demanded in the complaint from 
$1000 to $475 in accordance with the statute as brought forward, Sec 272 of 
the Code. 
Motion allowed. 18 Nov 1885

Henry MOORE vs. The Old Dominion Steamship Co.} Motion before clerk
Geo. W. WHITE one of the attys. in the action moves to amend the complaint 
and summons in this case to reduce the amount demanded in the complaint from 
$1000 to $475 in accordance with the statute as brought forward, Sec 272 of 
the Code. 
Motion allowed. 18 Nov 1885

Lewis HOBBS vs. The Old Dominion Steamship Co} Judgment
This action coming on to be tried and being tried before GRAVES—Judge—and a 
jury, and the jury having found all the issues in favor of the defendant The 
Old Dominion Steamship Company. It is therefore adjudged that the defendant 
go without day. J.A. GRAVES, Judge presiding. Fall term 1886

Mark NICHOLAS vs. The Old Dominion Steamship Co} Judgment
This action coming on to be tried and being tried before GRAVES—Judge—and a 
jury, and the jury having found all the issues in favor of the defendant The 
Old Dominion Steamship Company. It is therefore adjudged that the defendant 
go without day. J.A. GRAVES, Judge presiding. Fall term 1886

William KEYS vs. The Old Dominion Steamship Company} Affidavit to be allowed 
to sue
								In Forma pauperis
[In Forma pauperis means to take legal action as a pauper, and be exempt from 
standard legal fees, due to inability to pay]
William KEYS being sworn says that he believes that he has a good cause of 
action against the defendant and that owing to his poverty he is unable to 
file a bond in the sum of $200 for the prosecution of this action; or to make 
a deposit of a like sum in lieu thereof. 
He prays that he be allowed to sue In Forma Pauperis. 27 Jan 1886. This is 
certified by George WHITE and Wm. E. CLARKE, attorneys. Back: Order allowing 
the plaintiff to sue In Forma Pauperis.

Amos WILLIAMS vs. The Old Dominion Steamship Company} Affidavit to be allowed 
to sue
								In Forma pauperis
[In Forma pauperis means to take legal action as a pauper, and be exempt from 
standard legal fees, due to inability to pay]
Amos WILLIAMS being sworn says that he believes that he has a good cause of 
action against the defendant and that owing to his poverty he is unable to 
file a bond in the sum of $200 for the prosecution of this action; or to make 
a deposit of a like sum in lieu thereof. 
He prays that he be allowed to sue In Forma Pauperis. 27 Jan 1886. This is 
certified by George WHITE and Wm. E. CLARKE, attorneys. Back: Order allowing 
the plaintiff to sue In Forma Pauperis.

Wm. ELLIOTT vs. The Old Dominion Steamship Co.} Motion before clerk
Geo. W. WHITE one of the attys. in the action moves to amend the complaint 
and summons in this case to reduce the amount demanded in the complaint from 
$1000 to $475 in accordance with the statute as brought forward, Sec 272 of 
the Code. 
Motion allowed. 18 Nov 1885

Wm. KEYS vs. The Old Dominion Steamship Co.} Motion before clerk
Geo. W. WHITE one of the attys. in the action moves to amend the complaint 
and summons in this case to reduce the amount demanded in the complaint from 
$1000 to $475 in accordance with the statute as brought forward, Sec 272 of 
the Code. 
Motion allowed. 18 Nov 1885

Mark NICHOLAS vs. The Old Dominion Steamship Co.} Motion before clerk
Geo. W. WHITE one of the attys. in the action moves to amend the complaint 
and summons in this case to reduce the amount demanded in the complaint from 
$1000 to $475 in accordance with the statute as brought forward, Sec 272 of 
the Code. 
Motion allowed. 18 Nov 1885

Ellen SPARROW vs. The Old Dominion Steamship Company} Complaint
[Note: The articles in this complaint correspond to the answer of the 
defendant in a document above]
Ellen SPARROW alleges:
I.	That the Old Dominion Steamship Company is a corporation engaged in 
transporting freight and persons from Elizabeth City in NC to New Berne 
and vice versa.
II.	On 11 May 1885 the plaintiff took passage and paid for transportation and 
passage from Elizabeth City to New Berne in a vessel known as the 
Shenandoah. Robert SOUTHGATE was master.
III.	Plaintiff while aboard as a passenger at all times conducted and deported 
herself in an honest, quiet, orderly and decorous manner, not violating 
any of the rules or customs prescribed and usual for the deportment and 
conduct of passengers
IV.	On the arrival of the vessel in New Berne, the plaintiff was proceeding to 
leave the vessel as she had full right to do, when she was notified by 
Robert SOUTHGATE and his agents that she would not be allowed to leave, 
but by force and arms and numbers and the exhibition of force was 
compelled against her will and protest, to remain on the vessel a long 
time, 1 ½ hours, to the great neglect of her business and that by reason 
of this detention and false imprisonment, the plaintiff  complains that 
she was greatly wronged and endangered.
V.	That SOUTHGATE and his agents forced the plaintiff against her will and 
protest to open her private luggage and suffer the same to be searched and 
inspected by SOUTHGATE and his agents with no legal warrant, whereby 
plaintiff has been greatly endangered and wronged.
VI.	SOUTHGATE and his agents charged the plaintiff with theft, which charge 
was false and malicious, plaintiff having heretofore been of good name, 
fame, and reputation; she has been greatly wronged by this charge.
VII.	By reason of the false imprisonment and indignities and rough usage which 
she endured at the hands of the agents of the defendant, as well as the 
slander of her character and good name, and the scandal of the whole 
transaction and affair, plaintiff has greatly suffered in health, mind, 
and feelings.
VIII.	By reason of the wrongs and injuries of the agents of the defendants, 
plaintiff has been damaged to the amount of $1000
Plaintiff demands judgment against the defendant
1.	For $1000 damages
2.	For the costs of this action
Signed by Ellen [X] SPARROW, 20 June 1885

Abram PERRY vs. The Old Dominion Steamship Company} Complaint
[This is exactly the same as the above complaint, with a different plaintiff

Ellen SPARROW vs. The Old Dominion Steamship Co.} Motion before clerk
Geo. W. WHITE one of the attys. in the action moves to amend the complaint 
and summons in this case to reduce the amount demanded in the complaint from 
$1000 to $475 in accordance with the statute as brought forward, Sec 272 of 
the Code. 
Motion allowed. 18 Nov 1885

Abram PERRY vs. The Old Dominion Steamship Co.} Motion before clerk
Geo. W. WHITE one of the attys. in the action moves to amend the complaint 
and summons in this case to reduce the amount demanded in the complaint from 
$1000 to $475 in accordance with the statute as brought forward, Sec 272 of 
the Code. 
Motion allowed. 18 Nov 1885