To the Honal the Judge of the Third Judicial
Circuit for the state of Missouri

Your petitioner Josephine
an infant of color under the age of 21
years by Julia La Course her mother and next
friend respectfully presents that she was born in
the state of Illinois as she has been informed in
or about the year 1826 at the house of one
Baptiste La Course at the French Village in
the County of St Clair in the state of Illinois
that said La Cause claimed petitioner as a slave
that as such be sold her to one Charles Bond
who also lived in the state of Illinois that said
Bono afterwards sold and disposed of her as a
slave for life to M. Edward H. Mitchel who
brought her from the state of Illinois to the City
of St Louis in this state where she now lives
in his family and is used and held to color
and involuntaryservice by said Mitchel and
ownership claimed by him over as his slave
whereas your petitioner claims to be a free person
and prays that your Honor will order
and permit that he may bring suit as a
four person to establish her right to feedom

Josephini Sa
an infantby
her next friend
say
Marie P Ledue

State of Missouri County of St Louis

Before me Daniel Hough Marie P. Leduc a
Justice of the Peace County Court within and for said County
personally appeared Alexis Chouteau a White
man of lawful age and made oath that
the statements contained in the above petition of Josephline Sa an infantly
her next fiend Julia Sa are just
and here

Sworn to and subscribed before me
this first day of August A. D. 1835
M. P Leduc Justice County Court
St. Louis CountyM. S. Alexis his Chouteau
mark

It isherebyorderedthat the above
petition of Josephine La Course be
permitted to suefor her freedom
as a poor person to the
form of thestatute in suchcase
made and provided and that A. C.
beappointed as her counsel

L E Lawless
J. 3 Jud. Ct.

State of Missouiri
County of St Louis
SctIn the Circuit Court
November Term 1835

Josephine La Course an
infant of color under the age of 21 years who
sues by Julia La Course her nextfriend
complains of Edward Mitchell of a
plea of trespass for that the said defendant
heretofore to wit on the first day of
June in the year 1835 at the county
aforesaid did then & there beat stike wound
and illtreat the said Plaintiff and then
and there did confine and imprison. the
said Plaintiff for a long space of time
to witfromthence hitherto and other wrongs
to the said plaintiff then and there did
to the great damages of the said Plaintiff
and the said Plaintiff saith that she is injured and hathsustained damage
to the amount of one dollar. And the
said Plaintiff in fact saith that before
and at the time of this commission of
the said grievances by the said defendant
the the said Plaintiff was and still
is a free person and that the said
defendant at the said time above mention-
ed held and detained and still doth
hold and detaing her in slavery where
fore she brings her suit&c

Josephine La CourseBy hernextfriend Julia La Course

It is hereby ordered that the above petitioner Josephine La
Course be permitted to sue for her freedom as a poor person according
to the form of the statute in such case made and provided and that
A L Magenis be assigned as her counsel

L E Lawless J 3 Judl Ct

County of Saint Louis to
the State of Missouri To the Sheriff of the County of St Louis
Greeting

We command you to summon Edward & Mitchell that
he be and appear before the judge of our circuit court at the next term
thereof to be held at the city of St Louis within and for the county
of Saint Louis on the Seened monday of November next then and there
to answer into Josephine La Course an infant of color under the age of
21 years who sues> by Julia La Course her next friend of a plea of
trespass to the damage of the said Plaintiff of one dollar and have you then there this writ

Witness Archibald Gamble Clerk of
said Circuit Court at office this 5th day of August in the year 1835 Archibald Gamble Clerk.

No 22 Saint Louis Circuit Court
November Term 1835

Josephine La Course
an infant of color
by her next friend
vs
Ewd Mitchell >

This is a suit for freedom according
to the statute

Let a summons issue Magenis atty for Plfffiled 5th August 1835 Archibald Gamble Clerk

Executed this writ by reading it and the declaration petition
and order of the judge to Edward P. Mitchell on the 8th day
of August 1835 in the county of St Louis

J Brotherton Shffby G. HammondDeputyJudgt of Liberation & enq of damages 7-464 clerk Gamble fees
$1-93/2 fee book 225 continued Book 10 page 1- Rule 10 p 440,Dismissed Bk 12 p 2

State of Missouri
County of St. Louis
Josephine La Course
SctIn the Circuit Court
Nov. Term 1835

Personally appeared in open
Court Arthur S. Mageins and made oath that
he is Counel for the plaintiff in this Cause
that very soon after the commencement of the
same he was informed and verily believes that
the said plaintiff was removed out of the juridiction
of this Court into the State of Illinois by the
consent or convinience of said defendant that
this affiant has lately been informed that the right
of property to said plaintiff is claimed by
James Mitchel father of said defendant who
resides at Belleville in the state of Illinois
that said defendant gave information to
his father the said James Mitchel
of the institution of said suit by said plain
and that therefore said plaintiff was forth
with removed from the State of Missouri by
the said defendant or his said father or by both
of them and this affiant futher saith that
he verilybelieves said plaintiff was so removed for
the purpose of depriving her of the benefit
of a trail of her right to freedom in this court

Arthur L . Magenis
MaginisSworn to Dec 1st 1835 A Gamble Clk

22
Nov. Term 35.

Josephine La Course
vs
Edward Mitchell

affidavit filed
Decr 1st 1835A G Clk

> Saint Louis Circuit Court July Term 1836.
Tuesday 23d August 1836

On motion of A. L. Magenis attorney for the plaintiff, it is ordered that the
rule upon the defendant made at the last November term of this court
be removed therefore it is ordered by the court that the said Edward Mitchell
show cause on Saturday next why an attachment should not issue against him for a contempt
of court in removing the plaintiff out of the jurisdiction of this court, in violation of the order herein before
made."

A true copy of the rule. John Ruland Clerk.
By
J. D. Johnston D.C.

Served the foregoing Rule of court on
Edward Mitchell on the 27th day of August
1836 by Reading it to him in the city of St
Louis .

James Brotherton SheriffBy M. Brotherton D Shff Service 50 cts

Josephine Lecourse
vs
Edward Mitchelllb/> Rule

Book8 - page 119 Rule discharged
renewed as to James Mitchell
on a rule to show cause

JosephineLecourse
vs
EdwardMitchell

Filed 27th August 1836 John Ruland Clerk

Saint Louis Circuit Court July Term 1836

on a rule to show cause
why an attachment should
not issue against him &c
EdwardP Mitchell the defendant
in the above suit for cause why an attactment should not issue against him
for contempt of court for removing the plaintiff
out of the jurisdiction of this court, in violation
of an order in the said suit before made
says. that he the said Edward did
not remove the said plaintiff out of
the jurisdiction of this court

This respondant further says that the said
josephine before the commencement of the
said suit was bound to him the respondent
by James Mitchell the father of this
defendant who held and claimedsaid
Josephine as his own property for the purpose
of waiting on the wife of the respondent
for a short period that while said
Josephine was in the employ of said
Josephine respondents wife under said
warn suit was brought by said Josephine
against this respondent the said Josephine
claiming her freedom - Immediatly after the
service of the process in said action where
this defendant he employed Edward
Bates to defend suit as counsel
for him the respondent and suffered
that he would attend to it accordingly
and this respondant soon after left the
state of Missouri and went to the state
of Kentucky on business and returned
to St Louis after an absence of about
there weeks- And upon his return found
that the plaintiff had been taken away

during his absence and in inquiry learned
that said plaintiff had been taken by
said James Mitchell his father to his
residence in the state of Illinois This
respondent further says that when he left
St Louis to go to Kentucky , he left the plaintiff
at St Louis in the family of the respondent
and that she was taken away during
his absence without the knowledge
privity or consent of this respondant
This respondant further says that he had
not at the time of the commencement of
the said suit any or claim to
the services of said plaintiff except for such
time as said James Mitchell should place
her said James having a right to take
away the plaintiff at any time

Sworn to & subscribed in open
court this 27 August 1836 John Ruland Clerk
EdwdP.Mitchell