- This topic has 1 voice and 0 replies.
-
Posts
-
I’ll repeat this in a new topic so it won’t get lost.
Speaking of Chavis:
Arthur v. Chavis, 6 Randolph 142, February 1828 [143] ‘The ground on which the pauper [Milly Chavis} claimed her freedom, was, that she was the daughter of one Winny Chavis, a free woman: that betwen forty and fifty years before, when she was a girl of six or seven years old, living with her mother in Brunswick County, she was stole from her, carried to Pittsylvania by one Davis, and sold by him to Bennett, who gave her to Arthur, his son-in-law.” The deposition of Polly M’Kinney of Brunswick proved that the stolen child had a scar on her thigh. At the trial a scar on the thigh was relied on strongly as identifying Milly with the stolen child. Judgement was for the plaintiff. New evidence discovered including bill of sale to Davis. Judgment reversed.
[This message has been edited by Linda (edited 08-01-2001).]
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
