View Document Frames
Richmond Enquirer, November 1, 1839.
CASE OF THE SPANIARDS DECIDED--Judge Inglis yesterday made order that Senor Montez
be liberated from custody, on common bail, and that Senor Ruiz be liberated on justified
bail of $250. The distinction between the two is made on the point that Senor Ruiz
was the owner of the slaves on board the Amistad. Mr. John B. Purrey : the gentleman
who has so successfully conducted the case of these Spanish gentlemen, intends to
appeal immediately, on the part of Senor Ruiz, to avoid future litigation: there
being forty negroes concerned in this matter, who all might bring similar suits against
him. --N. Y. Gazette of Saturday.
THE AMISTAD--Judge Inglis delivered his opinion in relation to the Spanish gentlemen
imprisoned by the Abolitionists, under color of a charge of assault made by the pirate
Cinquez. Montez he discharges on his own recognizances, and Ruiz ordered to find
bail in $250.--My old friend, the Dey [word?] of Algiers, would long before this
have hanged the Pirates--restored the property to their rightful owners, and bastinadoed
Lewis Tappan.--This would be called Algerine justice; but it would have been justice
after all.--N. Y. Star of Saturday.
What will Spain say to these proceedings?
CASE OF RUIZ AND MONTEZ ADS [WORD?] SINGWEH.--Judge Inglis, of the Court of Common
Pleas, gave his decision in this case yesterday. It was on an application to discharge
the defendants on common or nominal bail, or to have the amount reduced. He did not
undertake to decide whether the plaintiff Singweh was or was not the slave of Ruiz,
a point which had been raised by counsel, and which, if decided in favor of the defendant,
would take away the whole substratum of the plaintiff's action inasmuch as a slave
can have no remedies by civil action against has master. He merely assumed at this
interlocutory stage of the proceeding, that the plaintiff suffered under no disability
that would take away his right of action against the defendant for a personal injury,
without reference to the disputed point as to the relations of master and slave,
which involved the merits of the whole controversy. The present questions were whether
the affidavits of the plaintiff showed that the defendants had invaded his personal
rights, and whether, if that fact were established, the amount of bail, one thousand
dollars, had not been fixed too high. After a close examination of the affidavits,
he saw nothing in them which implicated the defendant, Montez, in the slightest degree,
in any assault or battery upon, or imprisonment of the plaintiff. He was merely present
at a battery committed on the plaintiff by another person, but there was no allegation
of his having joined in, advised or approved it, either before or after its commission.
Montez, could not, therefore, be considered a trespasser, either actually or by implication,
and there was no reason consequently for his detention. But the claim of ownership
by Ruiz, and his having been present at the trespass committed on the plaintiff by
another person, with apparent consent, made him a co trespasser, and gave a right
of action against him. Under all these circumstances of the case, the Court concluded,
"that the defendant Montez be discharged from custody, on filing common or nominal
bill, and that the amount of bail, which the defendant Ruiz is required to give,
be reduced to two hundred and fifty dollars."
In the Supreme court this morning, Chief Justice Jones decided the other African
case, Folah vs. Ruiz. His decision is based, we understand, upon the same grounds
with that of Judge Inglis. He holds the defendant to bail in the sum of two hundred
and fifty dollars; thus affirming the jurisdiction of the court and the right of
the plaintiff to have the question of his freedom and the amount of the injury sustained,
passed upon by a jury. The amount of bail required is, we suppose, of comparatively
small consequence to the plaintiff's counsel. N. Y. E. Post.
