NEGRO v. DAVID RICHARDS.
Court of Common Pleas. Sussex.
November 28, 1794.
Wilson’s Red Book, 30.
Peery for defendant
moved the Court in the evening for a hearing, suggesting that defendant had been ready often for trial, and that he was deprived of the service of the Negro.
Bayard for plaintiff
said that the records and office papers were not so much in the power of a Negro as a white man, that, laboring under more difficulties, they were entitled to more indulgence from the court.
Peery then craved an order for defendant,
to take him into his possession. The Court seemed willing to grant that order upon defendant’s giving security etc., but Bayard insisted upon the impropriety of the court’s granting them that order, as defendant may without such order take the Negro; but said if the Negro *32should be decreed to be free, he was entitled to recover of defendant in an action for his false imprisonment, which perhaps an order for taking the Negro would excuse; that the master’s right to hold the slave ought to be contingent till trial, and at his own peril.
*31Per Curiam.
You need not urge such arguments; the court are sensible of the difficulties a petitioning slave is subject to, as to the defendant’s being without the service of his Negro, that is not our fault, he has a right to his service until trial.
*32Per Curiam.
We never take a slave out of his master’s possession before trial, but where we have reason to apprehend that the master will use uncommon severities to the slave before the trial can be had, or will prevent his coming to court, or will send him out of the state, we have obliged the master to enter into a recognizance to be forthcoming for the slave, and in the meantime to use him well, and have made orders for his taking him until trial. But it is now too late in the evening to go into the trial.
Adjournatur.