Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Somerset v Stewart (1772) 98 ER 499 (also known as Sommersett v Steuart, Somersett's case, and the Mansfield Judgment) is a judgment of the English Court of King's Bench in 1772, relating to the right of an enslaved person on English soil not to be forcibly removed from the country and sent to Jamaica for sale.
His godparents, abolitionists, filed a Habeas corpus case with the courts and enlisted Granville Sharp to aid Somerset. [3] The case, Somerset v Stewart, saw powerful interests arguing on both sides, as it challenged the legal basis of slavery in England and Wales. On 22 June 1772, the judge, Lord Mansfield, found in favour of Somerset. [3]
Mansfield's deliberate procrastination stretched Somerset's Case over six hearings from January to May, and he finally delivered his judgment on 22 June 1772. It was a clear victory for Somerset, Sharp and the lawyers who acted for Somerset. Mansfield acknowledged that English law did not allow slavery, and only a new Act of Parliament ...
Somerset's cause was taken up by Granville Sharp, a leading abolitionist. [ 3 ] Mansfield tried to persuade Stewart to free Somerset, as had happened in several similar recent incidents, thereby avoiding a potentially controversial legal case that might challenge the entire legality of slavery.
Francis Hargrave (c.1741–1821) was an English lawyer and antiquary. He was the most prominent of the five advocates who appeared on behalf of James Somersett in the case which determined, in 1772, the legal status of slaves in England.
The Chineke! Junior Orchestra is made up of ethnically diverse musicians aged between 11 and 22.
[citation needed] In the case Somerset v Stewart (1772) 98 ER 499, Lord Mansfield ruled that, as slavery was not recognised by English law, James Somerset, a slave who had been brought to England and then escaped, could not be forcibly sent to Jamaica for sale, and was set free. In Scotland, colliery (coal mine) slaves were still in use until ...
Mansfield, in summing up the jury's verdict, said "The Case of Slaves was the same as if Horses had been thrown over board", and endeavoured to uphold the notion that slaves were property which could be destroyed in situations of "absolute necessity". But, new information was introduced in the case, and he ruled against the owners of the ship.