Bill of Sale (Martin/Gaulden)

“Received, Riceborough, March 8th, 1830, from Jonathan Gaulden his note for a certain negro woman named ?ary [perhaps Mary] and her son Damon, which negroes I warrant and defend unto the said Jonathan Gaulden from all claims whatever, both from myself and my heirs and assigns forever.” Signed by James E. Martin. Witnessed by John Dunwody. Recorded in Liberty County Superior Court on March 20, 1830. 

[NOTE: This deed was unusual in that it appeared to be a bill of sale but no price was mentioned. Thanks to Kellinda Brown for finding the 1827 court case that appears to be about Mary and Damon, although Damon is never named in the court case. Based on the wording of the 1830 record, and the definition of “trover,” which is how Martin sued Gaulden, it appears likely that Mary and Damon remained in Gaulden’s possession.] 

In the May 1827 term of the Liberty County Superior Court, James E. Martin sued Jonathan Gaulden for the loss of “the slaves Mary & her infant child.” Gaulden was found guilty and ordered to pay the sum of $450 dollars in damages and to deliver Mary and her infant child [never named] to Martin within 10 days. Richard W. Habersham and George W. Owens, attorneys for Martin, stated that on March 10, 1827, in Liberty County, while Martin was “lawfully possessed as of his own property, of a certain negro woman slave named Mary and her infant child being so thereof possessed, afterward, to wit, on the same day & year in the County & State aforesaid, casually lost the said negro woman slave named Mary and her infant child out of his possession, and the said negro woman slave named Mary and her infant child afterwards on the same day & year, in the County & State aforesaid, came to the possession of the said Jonathan Gaulden by finding: yet the said Jonathan Gaulden, well knowing the said negro woman slave named Mary and her infant child to be the property of your petitioner and of right to belong & appertain to him, but intending to injure your petitioner hath never returned the said negro woman slave named Mary and her infant child to your petitioner, altho’ often requested so to do & hath hitherto refused so to do; and afterwards to wit, on the elevenths day of March in teh year aforesaid converted & disposed of the same to his own use, to the damage of your petitioner, one thousand dollars.” Gaulden appeared in court; although his side of the argument was not recorded in this record, he was ordered to pay damages and return the individuals to Martin. 

Gaulden was sued  for “trover and conversion,” an older term allowing a suit against someone who found a piece of property and converted it to his own use. The suit is for damages — the replacement value of the property — not for return of the property itself. [See Wikipedia for further information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trover]