The Overseers of South Brunswick v. Overseers of East Windsor case questioned the New Jersey Slave Codes of 1798. One code in particular that it questions is code twenty-six. An overall synopsis of the facts: A slave named Jack has been removed from South Brunswick to the township of East Windsor by the Overseers of Poor of South Brunswick by the Two Justices of the Peace County of Middlesex. The reason he was removed was because he was not free and his owner, John Mount was from East Windsor but moved to New York. East Windsor appealed this case to the General Quarter Sessions because of the Slave Code laws that differed to the arguments of South Brunswick, the Session decided the “order of the removal (to be) quashed”(8 N.J. Law 64). Both …show more content…
John Mount moved to New York in the year 1802 leaving behind his slave Jack. John Mount never manumitted Jack, so Jack was not legally free. Mount played the role of the true defendant but because he lived in New York and had sufficient property, “he is within the reason and spirit which is the equity of the act”( 8 N.J. Law 64) a suit couldn’t be maintained against him. Jack plays the role of the problem. South Brunswick and East Windsor both do not want Jack in their townships because the main purpose of Overseers of Poor are to reduce those who qualify for relief. Jack is not in a party, he is a slave and for all he knows he has no rights to play any parts in court, but a problem. Jack was not formally manumitted probably because Mount didn't do the specific requirements need for him to be legally free. This made no difference to Jack because his owner had left to New York and so Jack would assume he was free, or had been manumitted. Jack supported himself by receiving relief from the Overseers of Poor from South Brunswick, as it states that all townships overseer of the poor, “must provide for (Jack), unless they can find some other person or township legally chargeable...”( 8 N.J. Law 64). The Court seems to keep mentioning that the Overseer of the Poor, regardless of settlement, should provide for those who are unable to in their townships. The result of the case ended with East Windsor winning and suing South Brunswick. The Court decided that Jack had no legal settlement in East Windsor and also deciding that if an owner of a slave is able to provide and maintain that slave but leaves the state, the slave does not acquire a legal settlement in that township that owner was originally from. They got this answer by addressing the New Jersey Slave Codes, twenty-five and twenty-six to be exact. Jack was not free or manumitted, his owner was also able to prove and maintain Jack,