|
40 SLAVERY & ABOLITION
John Wheat, argued Nathaniel Talbot, was willing to 'swear to a falsehood'.
In Prince George's County 'his testimony...would not be believed'. Eben
Parramore must also be lying, for the people mentioned in his deposition 'had
never heard of Ann Joice.12
Despite such assertions, Mahoney's lawyers remained undaunted. They
insisted that since Joice had been 'carried from Barbados into England when
very young', she 'ought to have been free long ago'. Hoping that a jury com-
posed of small farmers and artisans would equate their own political enslave-
ment to aristocrats like the Darnalls and Carrolls with the physical slavery of
Charles Mahoney, the counsels for the petitioner portrayed the burning of
Joice's indenture as a tyrannical abuse of power. The 'great people', com-
plained one of Ashton's neighbours, were unwilling to abide by the law like
everyone else. Exploiting their rank in society, they forced their indentured
servants 'to serve longer than they ought to serve'."
Ashton's lawyers responded by submitting several affidavits from respect-
ed members of the Maryland gentry. Eleanor Carroll, Henry Darnall's grand-
daughter, maintained that Joice had never believed that she was 'entitled to
freedom'. Another relative, Henry Hill, declared that Joice and her children
'were always considered as slaves and very good ones'.14 Yet the defence's
most effective tactic was its continued attempt to impugn the veracity of those
who had testified in support of Mahoney. John Clagett insisted that his father
had never spoken 'one word' about the burning of Joice's indenture. Sarah
Ratcliffe swore that her mother, whom Eben Parramore claimed had done his
wash, 'knew nothing of the freedom of any negroes whatever'. Sarah's broth-
er, John Lambath, added that their mother was 'too infirm' to have worked for
Parramore. According to Lambath, Parramore was a 'very bad' man who had
once been arrested for stealing."
The depositions of John Wheat continued to provoke fierce debate. Wheat
argued that both his father and grandmother had been 'surprised' that Joice's
children had never obtained the freedom to which they were 'entitled'. When
Ashton's lawyers produced evidence that Wheat was 'generally reported and
believed...to bear a bad character', James Mullikin came to his brother-in-
law's defence. But Mullikin was hardly an unbiased witness. In 1788 Ashton
had petitioned Governor William Smallwood to remove Mullikin as Justice of
the Peace in Prince George's County. Anti-Catholic prejudice, complained
Ashton, had induced the justice to spread 'shocking indecencies & false-
hoods' against his character. Unwilling to believe Mullikin, the General
Court ruled Wheat's testimony inadmissible.16
In October 1797 both sides filed an admittance, declaring that Mahoney
was Joice's great-great-grandson. A jury was then called to determine
whether Joice had been to England. After examining the evidence, it con-
cluded in a special verdict that 'Joice came into this country with Charles
|
