Page:United States Reports, Volume 10.djvu/12

4 and next succeeding his coining into the state, to import or bring in any slave or slaves which before belonged to such person, and which slave or slaves  had been an inhabitant of some one of the United  States, for the space of three whole years next preceding such importation; and the residence of such slave in some one of the United States, for three years as aforesaid antecedent to his coming into this state shall be fully proved, to the satisfaction of the naval officer or collector of the tax, by the oath of the  owner, or some one or more credible witnesses."

Upon the trial the defendant below took two bills of exceptions.

The first was to the opinion of the court that it was incumbent on the defendant, (Scott,) in order  to bring himself within the proviso contained in the first section of the act of 1783, to show to the jury that  it has been fully proved to the satisfaction of the naval officer, or collector 6f the tax, by the oath of the owner, or some one or more credible witness or witnesses, that the petitioner was a resident of some one of the United States for three years antecedent to his coming into the state of Maryland; and that it was not sufficient for the defendant to prove, on die trial, to the satisfaction, of the jury, that the defendant, being a citizen of some one of the United States, and coming into the state of Maryland with a bona fide intention of settling therein, and who actually resided within the said state for one year at least, computed from arid next succeeding his coming into the state, imported the petitioner, who then belonged to the defendant, and that the petitioner had been an inhabitant of some one of the United States for the space of three whole years next preceding such importation.

The second bill of exceptions was to the refusal of the court to admit, as evidence, two certificates made during, the trial, the one by the collector of the customs and naval officer of the United States,