There are no known copyright restrictions on this item. You are free to use this item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. Washington University Libraries does not assert copyright in reproduction scans of public domain materials made openly available on its websites. For more information on policies and procedures governing the use of materials, contact digital@wumail.wustl.edu.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
The petition of
aged about twenty years of
years ago she was claimed and possessed as a Slave by
one
to the territory of
du
for about two years, holding your petitioner as
a slave during that time at that place & causing
her to work for & serve himself & family at that place
during that time as a slave at which place her child
brought your petitioner to
her & said child to one Joseph Klunk, who has recently
sold her
a dealer in Slaves & is about to take your
petitioner & the child down the
to New
holds your petitioner
his slave, and your petitioner prays that your
petitioner & said child may be allowed to sue as a poor per-
son in the
& that the said
carrying her or said child out of the Jurisdiction of the
Suit.
John a colored man being duly sworn
on his oath
within named & has known her for five or six years
that he knows said
chigan Territory for more than one year, of his
own knowledge, as he saw her there during that
time: & he understood that she had been there held
in the same way by said
immediately previous thereto: he knows also that said
du
& by him, sold to said
heard & believes that said
slaves & is about to remove said
her child from
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
On reading the foregoing petition &
affidavit & being of opinion that said petition
contains sufficient matter to authorize the com
mencement of suits for freedom on behalf of
said
by order that they be permitted to sue as poor
persons to establish their freedom: & assign
as their counsel
And
child have reasonable liberty to attend their counsel
and the court when occasion may require: & that
said
of them be taken or removed out of the jurisdiction
of the
Petition of
Child
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
freedom
her attorney complains of
trespass, for that the said defendant heretofore to wit
on the
one thousand eight hundred & thirty four
County with force and arms &c. assaulted the said
plaintiff, & her then & there did beat & bruise & ill
treat & strike & also then & there imprisoned the said
plaintiff & kept & detained her in confinement & res-
trained of her liberty without any reasonable cause
for a long time to wit hitherto contrary to law &
against the will of said plaintiff, and the said plain
tiff avers that before and at the time of the com-
mitting the grievances aforesaid, she was & still is
a free person, & that the defendant then held
& detained her and still holds & detains her in
& there did to said plaintiff,contrary to law &
against the peace & dignity of the
five hundred dollars & therefore she brings
her suit &c.
We command you to summon
the Judge of our
instant then and there to answer unto
& permitted to sue as a poor person) of a plea of tresspass to the damage of said
plaintiff of five hundred dollars and have you then there this writ
On reading the foregoing petition & affidavit & being of opinion that said petition contains sufficient
matter to authorize the commencement of suits for freedom on behalf of said
I hereby order that they be permitted to sue as poor persons to establish their freedom, & assign as their counsel
counsel and the court when occasion may require; & that said Rachel & James
either of them be taken or removed out of the Jurisdiction of the
because of their application for freedom.
And the said defendant
his attorney comes and defends the force and injury
when
posed wrongs and injuries above laid to his charge
in manner and form as the said plaintiff
puts himself upon the Country
vs.
Trespass for freedom
Issue Summons
Executed this writ by reading
& the copy of the order made by the Judge
of the Circuit Court of the
third Judicial Circuit to
the defendant in the
Judge of Liberation &
made
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
You are hereby commanded to summon
that setting aside all manner of excuse and delay, they be and appear in proper
person before the Judge of our
July
testify and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy now pending in
our said Court, wherein
plaintiff
Executed this writ by reading it to
day of July 1835
vs
for plff
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
You are hereby commanded to summon
Fredk D Ortley
that setting aside all manner of excuse and delay, they be and appear in proper person before the
Judge of our
the
now pending in our said Court, wherein
and
the
Executed this writ by reading it to the
within Named persons on the
in the
Racheal
vs
for
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
You are hereby commanded to summon
that setting aside all manner of excuse and delay, he be and appear in proper person
before the Judge of our
March next
and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy now pending in our said Court,
wherein
defendant on the part of
Plaintiff
Executed this writ by reading it to the within
named persons on the
in the county of
vs
sub: for Plff
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
We command you to attach
by
the Judge of our
and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy, now pending in our said
/
defendant wherein the said
has heretofore been summoned on the part of the said
Executed this writ and had the
body of
court on the
vs
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
Be it remembered that on the
trial of this case before the Court sitting as a
Jury
the behalf of the plaintiff who testified that in
the fall of the year
siding at or near the mouth of the St. Peters, came
to
by witness to major Brant of
witness taken up to him to
St. Peters in the same fall, where said
held her as a Slave, till the fall of the year
taking the said
at which place he held her in slavery, till
about the spring of the year
he took her to
sold her: that
side of the
that said
had resided at
still residing there when he bought her, having
just married: that during the whole time he
was at
there as an officer of the
attached to the troops there by witness believed & during the time
he was at
there as such officer, & was in the quarter wal-
ters or commissary's department: that
sippi River in the territory of
the said
The following extract of a letter of said Stock-
ton was also read in evidence by consent of
parties.
``Rachel the girl who has now sued for her
" freedom was purchased of Major Brant, by
" my direction, and sent up to
" upper
" In the fall of
" my family & took
" Early in Spring of
" in
" til August following when I was ordered to
" Fort Crawford,
" Territory where I arrived in October following &
" remained there until
" which I sold
" me to
" Her son was born at Fort Crawford, some
time in the spring or summer of
"ring all the time I owned her & her child I
" was an officer of the
"tioned at those different posts by order of the
" proper authority.
" otherwise there as my private servant and
" in immediate attendance upon my family"
The following statement made by
by consent read in evidence for the plaintiff
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
in this case, namely:
``About the time of the commencement of
``this suit (the writ had just been served I believe)
``the dependant came to my office and said
``that he ought not to have been sued or some
``thing to that effect: that he had bought Ra
``chel from Mr. Klunk & received her & taken
``her to his farm not knowing that there was
``any claim to freedom but that as soon
``as the writ was served, be went to Klunk
``& cancelled the bargain, and
``him back the consideration money: but
``that Klunk had never executed to him
``a bill of sale for her''.
No other testimony was given on either side of the
Court thereupon
to be that if said
army of the
in slavery. Stationed at
by the proper authority; & if he employed the plaintiff
during that time only in personal attendance on himself
and family, that such residence of the plaintiff at
those places as has been proved, does not entitle her
to her freedom. To which opinion of the Court, the plain-
tiff by her counsel excepted: & thereupon the court gave
judgement for the defendant
and
law, the plaintiff moved the court to set aside
the
reasons then filed in writing
1 Because the finding of the issues by the court
is against law & against evidence.
which motion was by the court overruled: to
which opinion of the court overruling said motion
the plaintiff by her counsel excepted, and prays the
Court to sign this her bill of exceptions which
is done.
vs
Bill of exceptions
Cause remanded &
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
Now at this day come the parties by their respective attornies and thereupon all
and singular the premises are by them submitted to the Court, who having heard the argu-
ments of Counsel and being sufficiently advised of and concerning the premises it is consi
-dered and adjudged that the judgment aforesaid in form aforesaid by said
rendered be reversed, and for nought held and esteemed, and it is further considered that said
cause be remanded to the said
the opinion of this Court herein delivered and that the said
her costs and charges by her about the prosecution of her appear in this behalf expend
-ed and that she have thereof execution. opinion filed
vs.
Opinion of the Court delivered by
Statute for freedom the defendant
were given for the defendent. it appears by the Record that in the Fall of the year
then residing in the
that one J. B. W. Stockton then sent by Witness to Major Brant of
the plaintiff was purchased for said
he held her in slavery till about the spring of the year
her. that
and in the Territory of the
resided at
plaintiff having just married, that
the U.S. Army. attacked to troops there, that while
an officer in the service of the U.S. Army. that
of the Mississipi, that
appeared also that
-ate attendance on
& said
during that time only in personal attendance on himself and family that such residence of
the plaintiff has been proved does not entitle her to her freedom. This opinion was excepted to
motions were made for a new trial for misinstruction which were overruled.
So sustain this Judgment Mr.
the ground that a residence in the N.W. Territory was contrary to the Ordinance of
amounted to a forfeiture of the property of the owner of a Slave for a violation of the Ordinance and
that by all the decisions made by this Court exceptions are allowed to exist, which Exceptions to
the positive words of the Ordinance must be raised of necessity. one case allowed by the Court is
this that if a person be passing through the Country with slave property which he has a right
to do if high waters detain him with his slave and he resumes his
may be the time he necessarily St aid with his slave shall not be considered as a residence
so as to work a loss of the slave. He then contends that in this case
the American Army and as such was bound to be and remain wheresoever his superior
officer should command him to be, that the slave was only with him as a servant not a slave
and being obliged by law to be and romain in a country where slavery is forbidden he had a
right to have his servant there also. Mr
this officer was bound by law and authority to be and remain in a country where slavery is
not allowed yet no law nor public authority required nor compelled him to take this
person there as a slave nor as a servant.
Having Stated the substance of the arguments on both sides we will proceed to laydown
the law as we understand it. it may not be unprofitable to state again the principles on which
this Court has heretofore rested in the many decisions heretofore made in regard to this Ordinance, it
seems that the ingenuity of counsel and the interest of those disposed to deal in slave property will
never admit anything to be settled in regard to this question. the ordinance of
government of the North Western Territory declares that neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude
shall exist in the same. The first case decided by this Court was that of
the facts of that case were that after the making the Ordiance
removed from
years and left there and removed to
declared that such residence by fore of the Ordinance manumitted the slave in that case the
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
Court say that the person who takes his slave into said Territory and by lenght of residence there
indicates an intention of making that place his residence and the residence of his slave also
and thereby induces a Jury to believe that fact also by such residence declares his slave free.
And the Court say in the case of La Grange vs.
exceptions than those expressed in the Ordinance: the case of La Grange was one where the own
er lived in
visits to his Master's house in
The case of
to the exception which necessity may create than any other. 3 Vol. M.R. 270.
That case decides that when a person does not intend to introduce slavery in the
reasonable necessity. there is in the Constitution of
the provision in the Ordinance under this prohibition in the
declared free. In all the cases decided by this Court it is admitted that the people of the
their slaves and while they justly retain the character of
the Country the fact that they have in their possession when so passing slaves does not eman
cipate them under the ordinance. and whether such owner has lost such character for the time
being depends on evidence to be adduced on the trial; Now if it could be proved that he
declared his design was to reside there this would be sufficient evidence that what he did
was done in view of that intent; but if he should declare that it was not his design to re-
side there and yet should do so then the fact would be stronger than the words.
In the case of
remain in the Country for a considerable lenght of time without working a for feiture of his
right to the slavce; the Court say in that case, if any accident should happen to the
which in ordinary cases would make it reasonable and prudent for him to suspend his journey
for a short time we think he might do so without incurring a forfeiture if he resume his
journey as soon as may be: Something more than the mere convenience or cese of the
ought to intervene to save him from a forfeiture. Something of the nature of necessity
should or ought to exist before he ought to be exempt. if swollen stranes of water which
could not be crossed without danger serious sickness of the family broken wagons and
the like, these things if they exist would be good causes of delay if the journey be resumed
as soon as they are removed.
It may be that the language contained in this case has induced the de-
fendant claiming under
In that case the Court say there should be something like necessity existing to
justify the owner of a slave to keep such slave in the Country so as to save a forfeiture. the
counsel insist on a necessity as regards the owner to stay and abide in the
ry and
there as a slave
It is said the officer was under orders from the government to remain where
he did and therefore a necessity existed which brings him within thereason of the decision,
in Julia's case.
This plea of necessity is well answered by Mr.
answer is that though it be true that the officer was bound to remain where he did during
all the time he was there yet no authority of law or the government compelled him to keep
the plaintiff there as a slave. This answer is complete as we think. shall it be said that
because an officer of the army owns slaves in
he is required to take command of a post in the non-slave holding States or
he thereby has a right to take with him as many slaves as will suit his interests or con-
venience. it surely cannot be the law. it thus be true then it is also true that the convenience or
supposed convenience of the officer repeals as to him and others who have the same character
the Ordinance and the act of
ons of the several laws and constitutions of the non slave holding states. But it is said in this
case that the plaintiff was only employed as a body servant to induce the belief of the fact
that the service she performed was necessary or perhaps to establish the fact that the officer
has a right to a family servant. we are yet to learn that the law which gives to officers
servants of a certain sort authorise such officers to hold slaves in lieu of such servants and in
places forbidden by the ordinance. In this case the officer lived in the
the time he bought the slave, he sent to a slave holding Country and procured her, this
was his voluntary act done without any other reason than that of convenience and he and
those claiming under him must be holden to abide the consequence of introducing slavery
both in
The judgment of the
trial
This electronic document is published as part of the St Louis Circuit Court historical records project.
The original document is part of the Missouri State Archives St Louis Circuit Court collection.
I,
District of the
of the Judgment rendered and the Opinion delivered by the
case of
vs
Judgment & opinion