l affixed thereto, for which the clerk shall
charge the emancipator five shillings; saving, however, the
rights of creditors and every person or persons, bodies politic
and corporate, except the heirs or legal representatives of the
person so emancipating their slaves.[340]

This law remained throughout the slavery period in Kentucky and the
only changes which were ever made in it were in the minor details to
untangle some legal ambiguities. The law of 1823, however, is
important in showing the discrepancies of the original provisions. By
this amendment it was enacted that when the county courts received
proof or acknowledgment of a deed of emancipation, or of a will
emancipating slaves, they were to note on their record a description
of any such slaves. The certificate of freedom which was given to the
Negro was also to contain this description and no other certificate
was to be issued except on the presentation of proof that the first
one had been lost or when such was required for use as evidence in
some suit. If any slave thus liberated was found to have presented his
certificate to another still held in bondage with a design of freeing
him, the emancipated slave was to suffer severe penalties.[341] These
added provisions apparently came to fill all the gaps in the previous
law and no further amendments of importance were needed to make the
laws of emancipation run smoothly.

Of all the many slavery cases which were brought before the Court of
Appeals in the next thirty years it is interesting to note that nearly
all of them concerned themselves more or less with the question of
freedom. The very fact that they reached the highest court is also
conclusive evidence that the law was not quite as clear as one would
at first suppose. Close study of the findings of the court will show
that the judiciary was always consistent in its interpretation of the
law and that most of the cases were carried up from the lower courts
because of disputes between the heirs of an estate and the
administrator as to their precedence in the matter of slaves. This
part of the controversy concerned itself with the property conception
of the slave, whether he was real or personal estate, which was
discussed earlier in this chapter. The purely emancipation cases
before the Court of Appeals divide themselves into three parts: (1)
those which concerned the interpretation of the statute law, (2) those
suits for freedom which