Black Woman Ann Otherwise Called Nancy

Samuel Denny Street

"The Hon. Samuel Denny Street was a small man, proud, provoking, and provoked".

"Mr. Samuel Denny Street was a man of small size, about 5 feet 7 inches in height, and a contemporary has described him as 'a regular game-cock,'one who would brook no slight from any man." 

S.D. Street (1752-1830) was Ward Chipman's co-counsel in R. v. Jones. English born and educated, Street was a prominent New Brunswick lawyer and politician. He has been described by his contemporaries, as well as by recent historians, as a fiery gentleman who was embroiled in every political skirmish. Street was a staunch reformer in the House of Assembly, and his alliance with his adversary, the conservative Chipman, in R. v. Jones was an unlikely one. There is some debate over who led the Defence in the 1800 trial, given Street's dedication to reform and Chipman's conservative roots. David Bell casts Street as the "moving force behind the abolitionist legal agitation in New Brunswick," explaining that it was he who initiated the habeas corpus against Caleb Jones. I. Allen Jack, on the other hand, credits Chipman with devoting "all his knowledge and mental energies to help to obtain liberty for the slave Nancy". Four years after the trial, when the slave Richard Hopefield went to court to prove his status as a freeman, Street acted for Hopefield, while Chipman acted for his master. In addition, Street was himself tried for harbouring a slave. The trial was recounted in the Gazette:Street was himself charged in 1806 with harbouring a slave as the Gazette recounts:

FREDERICTON, 26th Aug. 1806.

His Honor the Chief Justice returned last Saturday from the Queen's County and Sunbury Circuits. At the former the Grand Jury were dismissed very shortly after they were sworn, having no business whatever before them; and at the latter, not one Bill was sound. This Grand Jury in obedience to the charge of the Court, having enquired into a complaint which had been before made to the Chief Justice against two Daughters of Mr. JAMES TAYLOR of Maugerville, sounded, as was said, upon the representation of a black woman (of infamous character) for having murdered the Bastard Child of one of them, reported to the Court that they could find no Bill. The complaint was, as far as could be discovered, altogether without foundation: indeed there was no testimony (worthy of credit,) that a Child had been born, or that the supposed Mother was like for one. At the Circuit for Queen's, only two Civil causes, and those of inferior moment, were tried. At the other Court eleven causes were entered for trial four of them were accommodated, and the remainder tried. Four of these were of very little importance, except to the parties, but in the other three were involved questions in which the public are interested. 1. The first was an action of Trover brought by JOSEPH CLARKE, Esq.against SAMUEL D. STREET, Esq. For a Negro Boy claimed by the Plaintiff as his Slave. The Plaintiff gave in evidence a bill of sale from one Gabriel Fowler to him for the mother of the Boy in question, and a permit from the Police Office of New York, dated in 1783, to Fowler to bring the Woman as his Slave to this Country. It appeared that the Boy was born at or near the City of Saint John after the date of the bill of sale, and that his father, (if known) was a free man; that he had run away from the Plaintiff, and was harboured by the Defendant. The conversion was satisfactorily proved by an implied refusal to deliver the Boy upon demand.The Counsel for the Defendant moved for a Nonsuit upon four grounds, viz.1st. That it did not sufficiently appear that the mother of the Boy was a Slave. (For the general question of Slavery was not agitated.) 2d. That it appeared that the Boy was a bastard, or otherwise that his father was a free man; and in either case he must be free, as by the Laws of England, the issue follows the condition of the father and not of the mother. 3d. That as there was no Law of this Province creative of Slavery, and its existence here depended wholly upon the several Acts of the British Parliament, which were silent as to the Children born of Slaves, they could not be held in Slavery, but were entitled, as British subjects, born in this Province, to all the benefits of the Common Law of England, which is the Law of this Country; and therefore, admitting that the Rule of the Civil Law "that the child follows the condition of the mother," should prevail, or that both the Parents of the Boy were African Slaves, he being a native of this Province must be free. 4th. That the action of Trover would not lie for a Negro Slave, because no person could have that uncontrolled and unlimited property in a Slave, which was necessary to support this action.The Counsel for the Plaintiff urged in reply, that an action like this had been brought in Nova Scotia by Mr.De Lancey, and quoted the opinion of Mr. Aplin, supported by several learned Gentlemen in England,(as appeared in a Pamphlet published in this Province,) but the Chief Justice did not think that case of sufficient authority, and directed the Nonsuit, upon the third and fourth grounds moved by the defendant. His Honor was of opinion that the title to the mother was sufficiently established, and as to the second he was silent. (1806/9/10)

Following the 1800 trial, one of New Brunswick's wealthiest slave owners, Stair Agnew, challenged Judge Allen to a duel. Allen was one of the two judges who had ruled in Nancy's favour. Allen declined the challenge, but Street was eager to take his place. Duels were a not uncommon part of Street's life. Hill suggested that, "admiration of [Street's] proud spirit might well have influenced younger men, as several duels occurred near Fredericton". Earlier in 1800, Street challenged John Murray Bliss, another lawyer, to a duel. Street felt that Bliss had accused him of lying to the jury in a case that had been tried that day. The Street-Bliss duel was recounted by Street's second, Mr. Anderson, and is the earliest New Brunswick duel for which any record exists. Anderson's account of the duel confirms other depictions of Street's passionate nature: "Mr. Street insisted in strong terms he would have an apology or the blood of his adversary." 

Street was an officer for the British in the American Revolution, and in 1781 he was stationed at Fort Howe in Saint John. One account of his capture from Fort Howe and subsequent escape also speak of his plucky character:

"In 1781, Mr. Street was in an armed boat out of Saint John with a party of soldiers when the boat, crew and party was captured. Twice, an offer was made to have Lt. Street returned in exchange for two captains, but the offer was declined. The Machias people had forwarded a memorial stating that Mr. Street was quite too mischievous a person to be set at liberty, and requested his detention during the war. He escaped three times, the third time from a prison ship in Boston harbour. He swam with the flood tide over a mile up the harbour, took refuge in the house of an Englishman, and finally returned to the garrison at Fort Howe."

Street was called to the New Brunswick bar in 1785, and he developed a large law practice. He also served in the House of Assembly for many years. As a supporter and running-mate of James Glenie, the province's most vocal reformer, Street represented political radicalism to Chipman, Carleton and many other members of the government. Until 1804, the reformers enjoyed widespread support in New Brunswick and they formed a significant presence in the House. In 1803, for example, the clerk of the House died, and the Assembly rejected Carleton's choice for a new clerk and elected Street instead. This upset led to a "legislative imbroglio" in which Street was the subject of much ridicule. Edward Winslow wrote at the time: "Do you see a little short-legged thing there, that looks like a creeper-cock and buzzes and whizzes about like a bottle-ars'd fly?" The situation was resolved when Carleton's choice for clerk received the pay, although it was Street who had performed the clerk's duties. Another member of the Assembly remarked that "a general satisfaction prevailed except in one-little-dirty-Street."

In 1804, along with many other reformers, Street lost his seat. MacNutt attributes this decline in support for reform to England's war with France and the rejuvenation of patriotism for Britain.  Street did serve in the House again, however; most notably throughout the War of 1812. Street often felt that he was passed over for appointments to the Council and other posts because he was an Englishman "in a land of American refugees".  Nevertheless, he was finally made a Member of Council in 1819.