In July, 1682, Plymouth provided that if any Indian who was a servant of the English should run away, “such Indians where such a runaway Indian is come, shall forthwith give notice of the runaway to the Indian constable, who shall immediately apprehend such Indian servant and carry him or her before the overseer or next magistrate.”[795] At a meeting, January 9, 1713, the council of North Carolina considered the matter of two Indian slaves sent to the colony from Virginia, and found that they belonged to two residents of South Carolina from whom, presumably, they had been stolen. The council, acknowledging the owners’ claim to the right of possession, ordered that the Indians be delivered to Colonel James Moore “for the use and on behalf of the owners.”[796] A case in Massachusetts shows a colonial government remunerating a citizen for an Indian slave taken from him by governmental authority. During King Philip’s War, one George Speere bought an Indian from Captain Hull who had been empowered by the council to make sale of Indian captives at that time. The council, by warrant of the constable of Braintree, took away the Indian boy for some reason. Speere complained of the loss of his property, after, as he said, he had brought it to a “very tractable and profitable state”, and petitioned to have his Indian boy returned to him, or to be given his value. The council accordingly granted him the value.[797] As in the case of other property, the colonial courts were sometimes called upon to settle disputes regarding the ownership of Indian slaves. Two events in Massachusetts and North Carolina are cases in point. In 1684, the Massachusetts Court of Assistants was called upon to settle a case of disputed ownership which had been appealed from the County Court of Salem.[798] On November 24, 1777, complaint was made to the North Carolina House of Commons by a slave owner who had been dispossessed of his Indian slave by two other Carolinians. The House appointed a committee to investigate the matter.[799] Similar instances in other years are recorded in connection with North Carolina.[800] With the growth of the idea of property incident to the slavery status, the “early transition of the slave from personal estate to a chattel real, or real estate with accompanying incidents, was easy and natural.”[801] Under the caption of “property” both negro and Indian slaves were subject to taxation like other property, either for colonial revenue in general or to meet local expenses. Moreover in certain colonies both Indian and negro slaves were assigned the double character of persons subject to a poll tax and property subject to a property tax.