And the said defendant by R Pettibone his attorney comes of defends the force and injury when and as to the assaulting, beating, bruising, ill treating & imprisoning and detaining in prison of the said plaintiff, as in her said declaration mentioned- the said Defendant says that the said plaintiff ought not to have of maintain her aforesaid action thereof against him, because he says that before, and at the said time when in the said declaration mentioned, to writ at the place and within the jurisdiction aforesaid, the said plaintiff was and still is the slave of him the said defen dant, wherefore in his own right the said Defendant at the said time when did beat, imprison and detain in prison the said plaintiff so being the slave of him the said Defendant as he lawfully might do; which are the said several supposed trespasses whiney the said Plaintiff hath above thereof complained against him- And this he is ready to verify - Wherefore he prays judgement

Plea R Pettibone atty Replication dispute

St Louis County Ss

Robert Musick the above named defendant being duly sworn says that this suit depends upon the same principles and facts as the suit of Phebe Prewett ads Winny - and that the Testimony of the witness mentioned in the affidavit of the said Phebe here unto , is material for this deponent on the trial of this cause and that he cannot safely proceed to trial without him. This deponent knows of no other witness by whom he can prove the same facts which he expects to be able to prove by the said witness and he has reasonable grounds to believe that he can procure the attendance of the said witness at the next term of this Court - This deponent has taken no steps to procure the attendance of the said witness at this term- because he did not know of the said witness untill, it was too late to procure his evidence for this term. This application is not made for delay but that substantial justice may be done

On the trial of this cause it was proved on the part of the plaintiff that one Winne mother of the said plaintiff was carried into the now state of Illi-nois between twenty and thirty years since by one Phebe whitesides alias Pruitt and her husband when and where the said Winne was by there held in slavery during the space of three of four years: that at the end of the said time of there or four years the said Phebe with her said husband removed to the now state of Missouri and that the said Winne was then and for years after wards claimed and held as their slave there. The counsel for the defendant then required the court to instruct the Jury that a residence in the then North West territory (now) Illinois as above mentioned did not render the said Winne free under and in virtue of the ordinance of congress of the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven for the government of the territory of the United States North West of the River Ohio and also that the law did not authorize the recovery of more than nominal damages in this action by the plain tiff, which instructions the Court refused but changed the Jury that said evidence did in law set the said Winne free if it should appear to the satisfaction of the Jury that the said Phebe and her then husband resided there with intent to make that territory the home of themselves and of the said Winne : and that the said plaintiff was entitled to damages in this form of action an the same principles that any other plaintiff might recover in an action of false imprisonment. To these opinions of the Court delivered to the Jury the Council for the defendant excepted and prayed the Court to sign and seal a bill of exceptions taken there to which is done accordingly in open Court this tenth day of February in the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty two