| dbo:abstract
|
- R v Jones was a 1799 court case challenging the legality of slavery in New Brunswick. Caleb Jones (c. 1743–1816) was a slave owner and Loyalist who fled north from Maryland to New Brunswick after the American Revolution. In the 1780s, Jones purchased slaves in New York and Maryland and moved them to his farm in New Brunswick where he forced them to labour. By the end of the 18th century, slavery was increasingly controversial in the British colonies, and a number of prominent New Brunswickers sought to challenge the practise, including Solicitor General Ward Chipman. In 1799 they helped a woman named Nancy (sometimes called Ann) file a writ of habeas corpus challenging her enslavement by Jones. Nancy was represented pro bono by Chipman and Samuel Denny Street, while Jones retained Attorney General Jonathan Bliss, John Murray Bliss, Thomas Wetmore, Charles Jeffery Peters, and William Botsford. Sampson Salter Blowers also advised Nancy's counsel. The case was heard by the full bench of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick: George Duncan Ludlow, Joshua Upham, Isaac Allen, and John Saunders. Saunders was known to oppose slavery, while Ludlow, Upham and Allen all owned slaves themselves. The case lasted nearly a year, with the court announcing a split decision on 18 February 1800: Ludlow and Upham found in favour of Jones and Allen and Saunders found for Nancy. As no judgment was recorded, Nancy effectively lost her case and was returned to captivity. A similar case was commenced nearly simultaneously on behalf of another enslaved woman, Mary Morton, against her enslaver, Stair Agnew. R v Agnew did not go to trial and several commentators have conflated the two cases, sometimes referring to the petitioner as Nancy Morton. Agnew, then a member of the legislature, was so incensed by the dissenting judges that he challenged Allen to a duel. While Allen declined, Nancy's lawyer, Street, eagerly took his place. Although Nancy was not freed, the case was considered instrumental in turning public opinion against slavery. In fact, one of the judges, Isaac Allen, manumitted his own slaves after the hearing and a number of other slave owners were apparently persuaded to do the same. By 1820, slavery was essentially extinct in New Brunswick, partly due to the controversy provoked by R v Jones. (en)
- 英皇訴重士案（英語：R v Jones）是1799年的一宗法庭案件，挑戰紐賓士域奴隸制的合法性。 迦勒·重士（Caleb Jones，約1743–1816）是北美奴隸主及效忠派人士，在美國獨立戰爭後由馬利蘭州向北奔至紐賓士域。1780年代，重士在紐約及馬里蘭州購買了奴隸，並將他們遷至他在紐賓士域的農場，強迫他們勞動。 到18世紀末，奴隸制在英國殖民地引來了越來越多的爭議，一些著名的紐賓士域人試圖挑戰這種做法，包括法律政策專員Ward Chipman。1799年，他們幫助一位名叫Nancy（有時稱為Ann）的婦人申請了一份人身保護令狀，以挑戰重士對她的奴役。Nancy由Chipman及Samuel Denny Street無償代表，而重士聘用了律政司Jonathan Bliss、John Murray Bliss、Thomas Wetmore、Charles Jeffery Peters及William Botsford。還有Sampson Salter Blowers為Nancy的代表律師提供了意見。此案由紐賓士域最高法院全體法官聆訊：George Duncan Ludlow、Joshua Upham、Isaac Allen及John Saunders。眾所周知，Saunders反對奴隸制，而Ludlow、Upham及Allen都擁有奴隸。 該案持續了近一年，法院於1800年2月18日宣布了一項分開判決：Ludlow和Upham支持重士，Allen和Saunders支持Nancy。由於沒有記錄任何判決，Nancy實際上敗訴並被重新禁錮。 一眾類似的案件，即被奴役的婦女Mary Morton訴她的奴役者阿格紐（Stair Agnew），幾乎同時開始了。英皇訴阿格紐案（R v Agnew）並未獲審訊。一些評論員將這兩個案件混為一談，有時將呈請人誤稱為Nancy Morton。阿格紐，當時是立法會議員，被持不同意見的法官們激怒了，他向Allen發起了決鬥。雖然Allen拒絕了，但Nancy的律師Street急切地接替了他的位置。 儘管Nancy沒有被解放，但此案被認為有助於使公眾輿論反對奴隸制。事實上，其中一名法官Isaac Allen在聆訊後給予自己的奴隸自由，而其他一些奴隸主顯然也被說服這樣做。到1820年，奴隸制在紐賓士域基本絕跡，部分原因是英皇訴重士案引發的爭議。 (zh)
|
