Martha vs. Littleberry: She Is Not Amused

This post is an elaboration on the court case between Littleberry and his second wife, Martha, that I briefly covered a few weeks ago. After studying this case, I felt like I had a small insight into their personalities. They both seem very stubborn!

As with the previous post about the settling of Littleberry’s estate, the following post is a simple summary of the supreme court case cited below. I do not make specific references to page numbers.

Iredell, James, Reports of cases in equity argued and determined in the Supreme Court of North Carolina, Vol. I (Raleigh, NC: Turner and Hughes, 1841), 36-44; digitized at HathiTrust (https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009733288/ : accessed 10 July 2026).

---

Littleberry and Martha married on February 22, 1828.  Before the marriage, Littleberry and Martha entered into a legal agreement with Samuel Johnston whereby Mr. Johnston was to be the trustee of all of the property owned by Martha.  After the marriage, Mr. Johnston was to provide profits from the property to Littleberry upon request for his and Martha’s use.  It was also agreed that Martha would have the power during the marriage to make a last will and testament disposing of her property as she pleased.

In October 1835, Martha left Littleberry and moved in with Mrs. Shine (most likely her niece, Mary Shine).  In October 1836, Martha, by her next friend Mrs. Shine, filed a petition in the Court of Equity for the county of Halifax against Littleberry and Samuel Johnston.  Martha charged the following:

1. Mr. Johnston had declined to act as her trustee and had moved to “parts unknown.”
2. Littleberry had enjoyed the annual interests and profits of the property under Mr. Johnston’s care.
3. Part of the property consisted of slaves and their children and she had been informed and believed that Littleberry was about to take the slaves away to the South or was offering them for sale to someone who intended to remove them from the state.
4. She could not live in peace with Littleberry due to his “ill treatment” of her. 
5. Since she was separated from him he had provided very little in the way of support.  He furnished only a few articles and those of very inconsiderable value for her livelihood.  They were wholly inadequate for her reasonable support and comfort.
6. Although the profits of the property that Littleberry received were proper and within his rights, she felt that she was entitled to a separate portion of the profits for her “decent maintenance and support.”

The bill prayed the following:

1. That Littleberry be restrained from sending away or selling the slaves;
2. That she be decreed a decent support since her separation from him; and
3. That another person be substituted as a trustee in the place of Samuel Johnston.

Littleberry responded as follows:

1. In response to the charge regarding the slaves, he positively denied that he entertained or had ever entertained any such notion.
2. In relation to her claim to support, he declared that she separated from him without any reasonable cause, not because of his ill treatment but because of the influence of others who were using her for their own purposes, and against his wishes.
3. He submitted that he was not “bound to furnish her with any support, while she was living apart from him; but insisted that he had, nevertheless, from time to time, supplied her wants as far and as fully as he could prevail upon her to make them known.”

In the 1837 fall term of court, Samuel Johnston was replaced as trustee by Andrew Joyner and Rice B. Pearce. 

In the 1839 spring term of court, the judge declared the following:

1. Littleberry did claim that the slaves were under his control and he did intend to sell and move them out of the state.
2. Littleberry did not have the right to the possession of the lands and slaves mentioned in the marriage agreement, only the profits of the property.
3. The profits Littleberry received were for the joint use of him and Martha and that until they were reconciled, he was to provide a share of the profits to her for her maintenance and support.  The allowance should also be made for the time past in which they have been separated as well as any separation that might take place after reconciliation.
4. Martha had a right to require adequate security from Littleberry that the slaves would not be moved out of the state but kept within the jurisdiction of the court.

It was ordered and decreed that the Master ascertain and report at the next term:

1. Whether and how long, Martha and Littleberry had been living together and apart;
2. Whether, during the separation, Littleberry had contributed anything and if so, how much, towards Martha’s support and maintenance;
3. Whether they were reconciled and again living together;
4. What was the value of the estate mentioned in the marriage agreement; and
5. What yearly sum would be a proper allowance for Martha.
6. It was also ordered and decreed that Littleberry execute and deliver a deed of release and assurance of all his interest in Martha’s property to Andrew Joyner and Rice B. Pearce as well as pay all court costs.

Littleberry must have requested that the court give him time to appeal the decision because in the 1839 fall term of court, he was given until the next term of court to collect further testimony and evidence.  However, Littleberry was required to pay $400 to the court for Martha’s use.

In the 1840 spring term of court, Littleberry filed a petition to re-hear the decree rendered against him.  The motion was refused.  Littleberry then appealed to the Supreme Court and the Court agreed to hear his case.  Littleberry’s attorney was the Attorney General.  Martha’s attorneys were Iredell and Badger.

Judge Gaston of the Supreme Court stated that the lower court refused Littleberry’s appeal because they said the final decree was by consent by both parties.  However, the Supreme Court declared that the decree ordered in the 1839 spring term was not founded on consent but by the finding and judgment of the court.  The Supreme Court believed that Littleberry was entitled to be heard and after hearing his case, the Court came to a different conclusion from the lower court.  

1. The Court believed that Littleberry did not intend to sell the slaves but rather this was an idle threat made in “vexation” after his wife had left him, and for the purpose of being repeated to her.  However, the Court agreed with the plaintiff that Littleberry should not be allowed to remove the slaves from the state. 
2. The court also stated that Martha provided no evidence that could justify the declaration that she was compelled to leave him because of his ill treatment.  They further stated that “perhaps a charge can scarcely be brought by a woman against her husband more indefinite than that of ill treatment.’”  She did not show any sufficient cause for the separation. 
3. As to Martha’s claim that she should have her own portion of the profits from her property independent of her husband, the Court did not agree.  The Court stated that “no part of the profits of the property is settled to the separate use of the wife.”  They are receivable by the husband that he may better comply with his duty to provide for his wife but he is not bound to provide for her when she disclaims his protection and refuses to abide under his roof. 

The Court’s final opinion was that the 1839 decree should be reversed as erroneous.  However, Littleberry was restrained from removing the slaves or causing them to be removed beyond the jurisdiction of the court.  The rest of Martha’s claims were dismissed. It is unknown if Martha reconciled with Littleberry.  She occasionally visited Littleberry between the years 1836 and 1840 but we don’t know anything beyond that.  The Supreme Court case was decided in June 1840 and she died in 1849.  In her will dated September 20, 1845, she did not leave any of her property to Littleberry.  A portion of her property was left to Mary Shine and her children, Mary and Harriet Shine.

(See posts in chronological order)