were willing to speak for her. Scipio was at one time the property of a man whose surname was Wearing and who had married the widow of Elijah Postell (with whom Mary had once lived). It is assumed that Dina was Scipio’s wife. They were willing to testify that she had been a slave of a rebel and had helped to build fortifications for which work she was given her “Certificate of Freedom.” While Scipio and Dina testified, his “house took fire, and together with the whole of his Furniture, Wearing Apparel, and other property, was consumed. That by the said fire, he had also suffered the loss of a Child.”14
But, despite all of her testimony, Mary was unable to prove that she had a Certificate of Freedom and that it had been stolen from her. Although Mary had said that she had been Jesse Gray’s mistress, she could not prove that she had not been his slave. Jesse was acquitted because many of the magistrates were Loyalists and slaveholders themselves, and, therefore, generally unsympathetic to the plight of freed slaves.
Jesse sold Mary as a slave to William Mangham “for the price and consideration of one hundred bushels of potatoes.” He sold Mary’s daughter, Flora, to John Henderson for five pounds and personally delivered Flora to the dock where she was placed on the schooner, John and Sally, that was bound for the port of Wilmington, North Carolina.15
At the July 1791 session of the court, the jury found Jesse Gray guilty of a misdemeanour for selling Mary Postell as a slave and kidnapping Flora Postell, her daughter. Jesse was described by the jurors who were charged with reaching a verdict, as “being a Wicked and Evily disposed person greedy of lucre and seeking his Own profit and advantage by the loss and damage of others.”16 Despite feeling as they did about Jesse Gray, the jury still found him guilty of only a misdemeanour.
Indictments were brought down against several Negroes who were slaves of mean-spirited owners. Such was the case of a young girl, thirteen years of age, named Harriett. A case of larceny was brought against her by Samuel Marshall, Esquire of Yarmouth, who was at that time one of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace in the area. At the October 1810 term, the Grand Jury of Shelburne County came into court and presented a Bill of Indictment against one Harriett, a mulatto girl, for stealing a piece of ribbon, valued at nine pence, from Samuel Marshall, Esquire. Harriett pleaded not guilty and chose to be tried by a jury.
After hearing the evidence the jury decided. “It is the opinion of the Jury that Harriett is Guilty of charge alledged against her Rufus Hebbard foreman — Whereupon the court ordered the said prisoner Harriett to receive on the bare back twelve lashes, and the sheriff ordered to perform the same as soon as possible.”17 One can only imagine the pain and fear that Harriett felt as the lashes ripped into young flesh.
Punishments did not always fit the crimes.18 On January 30, 1809, a special session of the court in Yarmouth was held at which time several free Black men (there may have been one slave among them) were charged by the same Samuel Marshall on suspicion of stealing and embezzling rum, sheep, and sundry articles. These men were Jack Fell (Fells), Manuel Jervis, James Landers, Samuel Van Nostong (Nostrandt) and Samuel Van Nostong (Nostrandt) Jr.19
Jack Fell pleaded not guilty and put himself on the mercy of his country. After all the evidence was heard he was found not guilty of stealing, but was deemed guilty of receiving stolen goods, knowing that they were stolen and valued at nineteen shillings.
It was ordered “That Jack Fell prisoner shall pay a fine of forty shillings and be confined in gaol for six days.”20
Samuel Van Nostong confessed to the crime of stealing one keg of rum (containing about ten gallons, or thirty seven litres) on December 25 from the premises of Samuel Marshall Esquire, and also of receiving another keg of rum from James Landers. He put himself on the mercy of the court and was found guilty of stealing and receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen and valued at nineteen shillings. It was ordered “That Samuel Van Nostong Snr shall receive publikly twelve lashes on the bare back and make restitution to Samuel Marshall Esqr the sum of thirty shillings.”21 Samuel Van Nostong Jr. also pleaded guilty to the charges against him and put himself on the mercy of the court. He was charged with having been a party to stealing about ten gallons of rum and was found guilty of receiving goods valued at ten shillings knowing that they were stolen and also secreting the same. It was ordered “That Van Noston Jnr Shall receive publikly Twelve lashes on the Bare back and make restitution to Samuel Marshall Esqr the sum of Twenty shillings.”22
James Landers’s charges were for crimes perpetrated over a period of time:
The said James Landers having confessed himself guilty of the following charge viz. The said prisoner stands charged with having about a year ago stolen form the store of Sam’l Marshall about 12 gallons Rum-2 Brown Hatts-1 pr. Stockings, 2 Silk Handkerchiefs-12 lbs flour-2 lbs sugar — within fifteen months with having stolen 5 several sheep in company with others — about 9 Months ago with having stolen 6 pieces of pork — within 3 Months past in company with Samuel Van Nostong and others with having stolen about 30 gallon of Rum — ;within 7 months past with having stolen 2 other Hatts, a gimblet & 3 Bottles in Co with Isaac Jordan and Manuel Jervis….23
He was found guilty of stealing to the amount of nineteen shillings. Although the value of the goods stolen was basically the same as the other men’s, given that he seems to have stolen more, his punishment was more severe — a public lashing of thirty nine lashes on the bare back and restitution payment of five pounds to Samuel Marshall.
Manuel Jervis was “charged with having, at various times within Eighteen months past in company with James Landers and others, stolen from Samuel Marshall Esqr about 30 gallons [112. Litres] of Rum,—Also that in company with James Landers, Isaac Jordan, Dinah Ackerman alias Jordan and others unknown, did steal, kill and eat 5 sheep within the time aforementioned, being the property of persons unknown….”24 He was found guilty and ordered to pay the amount of ten pounds. It was ordered that Manuel be taken to gaol where he was to await the next general session of the court at which time his fellow conspirators would be called to give evidence against him. The general sessions for the April term of 1809 opened at which time Manuel Jervis pleaded guilty to his crimes. It was ordered “that the said prisoner Manuel Jervis shall receive twenty-seven lashes on the Bare Back and make restitution to Samuel Marshall Esqr the sum of nineteen shillings & eleven pence. Which said sentence was accordingly Executed….”25
Manuel Jervis and Jack Fell ran afoul of the law again, and on the same day, February 14, 1812. They were brought before the courts on suspicion of Petit Larceny “for stealing and embezzling” boards, wood, and other items. This time for Manuel Jervis, the penalty was severe:
“It is the opinion of this Jury of Our Sovereign Lord the King that the prisoner Manuel Jervis is Guilty in Manner and form as he stands charged.” Yarmouth14th February 1812. Benjamin Barnard Foreman…Ordered by the Court that the said Prisoner Manuel Jervis Shall receive twenty-four stripes and lashes on the Bare Back and that the same shall be immediately performed which was Accordingly done. Publickly….26
Jack Fells (spelled Fells this time) was more fortunate than Manuel. Although accused of the same crime, the jury returned with a “not guilty” verdict, whereupon the court ordered that Jack be released and acquitted.
How much did thirteen-year-old Harriet scream while the flesh was being torn from her back? Did the men scream as well or did they endure the punishments in silence because they were accustomed to being abused? Did they take the wood because they were cold; the food because they were hungry? The Van Nostongs, father and son, James Landers, and Jack Fells were not slaves, but it is not known if Harriet and Manuel Jervis were. It would, however, have not mattered. They were Black and during that time period, that was all one had to be in order to be punished more severely than others for the same crime.
Going
