HILLSBOROUGH,

OCTOBER TERM, 1794.

#### Flowers v. Glasgow.

On demand, previous to bringing detinue, Defendant acknowledged, that the negroes Were in his possession. Proof, that he had given one of the negroes to his son-in-law, who was in possession of him at the time of the demand, shall not prevent the Defendant’s liability to the action-.

Detinue. This cause now came on to be tried upon the general issue, and the proof of the demand made by the Plaintiff previous to the institution of his action was, that Plaintiff demanded the negroes (James and Dempsey J of the Defendant, who acknowledged they were both in his possession, and said he should not deliver them ; and that this demand was in January or February, 1787. The Defendant then proved, that two years before that period he had given James to his son-in-law, Mr. Williams, and had at the same time given him possession, which lie had continued ever since; and that the negro James, in January and February, 1787, was in William’s possession. — it was argued by General Davie, that Glasgow, as a parent, was willing and intended to undertake the defence of the action himself, and his acknowledgment must be taken as evidence to that amount. Et per curiam, Ashe and Wiiliams — The evidence'must be so understood ; and they directed the jury that this evidence was sufficient proof of the possession having been in the Defendant at that time but the cause for another reason, was adjourned.

Note. — Judge Williams said in this case, upon another part of the argument, that he should yield to the decision in the case of Timms and Potter, until it should be contradicted by a more full derision to the contrary. It was decided by two Judges, Ashe and Smhoab, against his opinion.