To the Honorable the Judge of the Circuit Court
written and for the County of St Louis in the State
of Missouri .

The Petition of Mary Charlotte a woman of Color
for herself and her four infant children Antoine
Augusta, Victorine and Euphania, Respectfully_
that she is entitled to freedom by being
born of a Negresse named Rene, who herself was
born at Montreal in Canada_ That about the Year
Seventeen hundred and ninety one, the said One was
removed from Canada by a Certain Johnathon Low
Julian Trader, to his trading port at Prairiedan Chiew
in the North western Territory of the United States west
of the river Ohio , where she was detained by him, as
his slave until his death, Some time in the Year 1792-
that she is informed that after the death of said
Stork, She was brought down to St Louis by a certain
Andrew Todd , a trader who sold her as a slave to a
Mr Dickers a Prist, Contrary to the provision of our Ordinance of the Congress of the United States entitled
an and Ordiance for the government of the Territory-
North west of the river Ohio , PassedJuly 13 and
1787-That she remained in the possession of said
Didier as his slave, and was afterwards sold by him
as such slave, to one Auguste Chouteau Since
deceased_

Your petitioner further States that from the
death of the said Auguste Chouteau to within
a few months past she has been held by the widow
of the Chouteau as Executor of his Estate that
after her death a certain Daniel J Chirteau, acting
as of Chirteau the
took your petitioner and till to hold Your Petitioner and her children
above named.

Your Petitioner therefore prays that she may be
permitted to sue as a poor person for the obtaining of
her & her said children's freedom, and that Your honor
will make an order that she have reasonable liberty
to attend her Counsel and the Court and that she shall not
be subjected to any severity on account of her application
for freedom, nor be removed out of the jurisdiction
of the Court

Mary her X mark Charlotte
qua tertis, J. Kritchmuut.
Sworn to and subscribed before we
this first day of May AD 1843
Jhn Krutchmar,
Justice of the peace
St Louis County, MO

County of St Louis
In the Circuit Court ss

Mary Charlotte the petitioner is allowed to sue as a poor
person to establish her & her children's right to freedom
and I assign her as Counsel J. McKim Duncan
and it is ordered that she shall have reasonable
liberty to attend her Counsel and the Court as
occurance may require and that she nor her children
be not removed out of the Jurisdiction of the Court
and that she be not subjected to any severity on account
of her application for freedom

Bryan Mullanphy
Judge 8th Jud Cir
of Missouri

Executed the above order in the County of
St Louis in the 2 May 1843 by making
known the County thereof to Gabriel S
Chouteau the defendant

William Milburn Shff
By Danl Murphy Dpty
Service $ 1.00

Petition for Freedom

In the St Louis Circuit Court
November Term. 1843.
State of Missouri
County of St Louis

Mary Charlotte plaintiff
complains of Gabriel S . Chouteau
defendant of a plea of trespass.
For that the said defendant on the
15th day of March A.D. 1843Court at
the County aforesaid with force & arms
an assault did make upon the said
plaintiff & then & there beat bruised
& ill treated the said plaintiff &
then & there imprisoned her the said
plaintiff & kept & detained her in
prison there without any reason or
probable cause whatsover for a
long time towit for the space
of ten hours then next following
contrary to the laws of the State
& against the will of the said plaintiff
And the said plaintiff owns that
before & at the time of the committing
of the above greivances, the said plain
tiff was & still is a free person
& that the defendant held & still
holds her in slavery, & other wrongs
to the said plaintiff then & there
did, against the peace & diginty
of state & to the damage of the
said plaintiff of 500, 00 dollars
& thereupon she x brings suit &c

Duncan & Cobb
Attys for Pltff

In the St Louis
Circuit Court
NovTerm 1843 1843

Declaration in Trespass
Damages $ 500.00

Clerk will issue summons
Duncan &
p.q.

County of St. Louis , ss.
The State Of Missouri ,To the Sheriff of St. Louis County - Greeting:

We command you to summon Gabriel S. Chouteau , if he
be found in your County, that he be and appear
before the Judge of our Circuit Court , on the first day of the next term thereof, to be
held at the City of St Louis , within and for the county of St. Louis , on the third Monday
of November next, then and there to answer unto Mary Charlotte
of a plea of trespass
to the damage of said plaintiff
dollars: And have you then there theis writ.

Witness, John Ruland , Clerk of our said Court,
with the seal thereof hereto affixed, at office, in the
City of St. Louis , this 1st day of
May in the year of our Lord eighteen
hundred and forty three
Jno. Ruland Clerk.
I acknowledge myself bound for all costs that may accure in the above cause.
Witness my hand and seal, at St. Louis , this day of 184

filed 16p262 conto70p26
not to Verdict & grp252. Missouri 16p299
Bill of Exceptions filed 16p324. Mo & official appeal filed 16p327p255.
appeal dismissed by Superior court-April Term 1863. Trial.-Jury
23p309Monsuit-Juryjdge chd23p310. Motion for new trial filed
23p313 Motion to setaside monsuit 23p 325.
November Term 1853. Order to Sheriff to hire out
the children father to 23p390
Mch J. '56. Special Venire ordered25p416. Plff & ordered to be court. Exn of Venirement
Ad venire of 12 ordered 25to 427. Jury & trial 25p428. Trial 25p430.. Verdict &
for plff of freedom & for cash Motion of new trial filed May 30. '56_ 23p430.
Mo: for new trial Bill of Ex. filed. filed appeal grantis & Ricognizance enterend into
25p432
Oct J 58 Jany 4-159 28p318 For sue foot of Shffs Return

No. 13
St. Louis Circuit Court
November Term 1843

Suit for freedom

Duncan & Cobb p.q.

It is ordered, that said Mary Char-
lotte be allowed to sue as a free person
establish her right to freedom
assign J. McKim Duncan as her
Counsel & that said Mary Charlotte
have reasonable liberty to attend her
Counsel & the Court as occasion may
require_that she be not removed
out of the jurisdictionof the Court, and
that she be not subject to any severity
on account of her application for freedom
Bryan Mullanphy Judge 8th Jud. Cir.
of Missouri

Filed May 1st 1843
John Ruland

Executed this writ in the County
of Saint Louis in the 2nd day of May
1843 By offering to read and the decla
=ration to Gabriel S. Chouteau the within
defendant which he refused to hear

William Milburn Shff.
By Daniel Murphy Dpty
Service $1.00

Feby T'59 March 1st Afft for Special Venire filed by deft 28p388
March 3 Mo & affl for Special Venire overruled Bill of Exceptions
filed for deft. 28p411 March 9th 1859 Ten Jurorsempannelled
and sworn 28p452. March 10 panel completed, trail progressed28p455379
March 11th Trial progressed 28p457 March 12th Trail finished
verdict for plff no for filed 28p 460. May 10th Motion for a
new trial overruled. 28p579. 286 597 Afft filed appeal allowed recognizance
entered into 3 bill of ex filed 29p20.

St. Louis Circuit Court

And the said
defend by his attorny comes & defends
the force & injury when & G & says
that he is not guilty of the said Tres-
pass & greivances above to his
charge & of this he puts himself upon
the county &

and for a further place_ the said
defendant says that at the time
said several supposed trespasses
were committed the said plaintiff was
a slave & this he is ready to
by wherefore he prays for justice
&

& Tiffany
atty

St Louis Circuit Court

pleas

Spalding & Tiffany
Atty
Filed Nov 20. 1843.
Jn Ruland Clk.
L.

Opend & filed Nov. 12. 1843.
Jn Ruland Clerk.

Depostions for Defts

Justices fees$1.00Clkv.50

not marked paid or due
PlffPostage 40 cts> paid by deft.

County Of St. Louis , SS.
The State Of Missouri ,To any Judge, Justice of the Peace, or other Judicial Officer of the State of Illinois
Greeting.

Know Ye, that we, in confidence of your prudence and fidelity, do by these presents au-
thorize you to cause to come before you, to be examined as witnesses in a cause depending in
our Circuit Court for the County of St. Louis , in the State of Missouri , wherein
Charlotte
is plaintiff and Gabriel S Chouteau is defendant all
and every such person, and at such time and place, as shall be named to you for that purpose by
the said Defendant
Attorney or Agent. And we command you to examine all and every such person upon his oath
or solemn affirmation first made or taken before you, to testify the whole truth touching his
knowledge of any thing relating to the said matter in controversy between the said parties;
and that you do take such his examination and reduce the same into writing. When you shall
have so taken his examination, you are to cause the witness to sign the same, and to that and
each examination, at the foot thereof, you are to append your certificate, setting forth the facts
that the examination was subscribed and sworn to or affirmed by the witness, and the day, as
well as between what hours of the day, on which it was done, as also the place of residence of
the witness, if known to you. Should any paper or exhibit be produced or proven, or be referred
to by the witnes, you are to describe the same in his examination, or cause it to be so marked
by him, as to establish its identity, and attach the same to his examination. The examinations
thus taken you will cause to be accompanied by a certificate of your official character, attested
by the seal of State; or should it be more convenient, such authentication and proof of your offi-
cial character may be made by the certificate and seal of the clerk of any court of record of any
county of the State, District or Territory in which you reside, stating also in addition to the facts
of his being clerk and that the Court is one of record, that at the time when the depositions
were taken you were an acting judge, (or other such officer to whom this commission is address-
ed,) and duly commissioned as such. And you will return the same and all exhibits produced to
you, annexed hereto, carefully closed up and under your seal, directed to the clerk of the Circuit
Court in and for the County of St. Louis , Missouri , with the names of the said parties litigant
endorsed thereon, with all convenient speed.

Witness, John Ruland , Clerk of our said Circuit Court ,
at the City of St. Louis , this fourteenth day of
November in the year of our Lord one thou-
eight hundred and forty onethree
John Ruland Clerk C.C.

In the Circuit Court , for the County
of St Louis State of Missouri .To above plaintiff

You are hereby notified, that Depositions of Witnesses to be read in evidance in the above cause,
on the part of the defendant will be taken at duel_
ing House of Pierre Menard in the town
of Kaskaskia
in the County of and State of Illinois on the first
day of Decembernext between the hours of 8 o'clock in the forenoon, and 6 o'clock in the
afternoon: and that the taking of said depositions, if not completed on that day, will be continued
from day to day at the same place and between the same hours, till completed.

20 Novr 1843
& Tiffany
attys for deft

Leave on plff &
Duncan & Cobb her
attys, Miles Duncan
& Cobb will receive
copy as legal notice

1843 Novr, 20Rev copy of within notice
we acknowledge to he legal service

Duncan & Cobb

Deposition of Pierre Menard produced sworn and arrived
at the duelling house of said Pierre Menard in the Town of
Kaskaskia in the County of Randolph and State of Illinois
before me Dwight Hunt a Justice of the Peace in a for the
Town of Kaskaskia in a certain cause now pending in the
St Louis Circuit Court in the State of Missouri between
Charlotte plaintiff and Gabriel S. Chouteau Defendant
on the part of the Defendants.

Pierre Menard of lawful age being produced sworn and
examined on the part of the defendant deposith and saith
in the town of Kaskaskia . I left the
province of Canada in August seventeen hundred
and eighty six. Is the time left Canada and
previous thereto, there was in that provided negroes
and mulattoes who were known and held as
slaves_ They were generally employed about the
house, and treated in the same manner as the house slaves in the
slave states of the United States . They were recognized
generally as the property of their and
subject to be sold and approved of_ I do not recall
any particular circumstances in which they more
sold, but at the death of her master they remained
in his _

Pierre Menard

I Haut a Justice of the Peace within and for the
Township of Kaskaskia and State of Illinois so hereby certify that in pursuance of
the and notice cause before me at the
dwelling house of Pierre Menard in the said Town of Kaskas
=kia in County of Randolph and State of Illinois . Pierre Menard
who was by me sworn to testify the whole truth of his knowledge
touching the matters in controversy in the cause aforesaid
that said deponent was examined and his examination
= to writing in my and in my
subscribed by him on this first day of December in the year
eighteen hundred and forty three between the hours of eight in
the forenoon and six in the afternoon of that day & is now himreturned
Given and certified this first day of December in the year
eighteen hundred and forty three -

Dwight Hunt
Justice of the Peace

I Ferdinand Maxwell Clerk of the County Court of
the County of Randolph and State of Illinois hereby certify
that on the first day of December in the year eighteen
hundred and forty threewas and still is a Justice of Dwight
Hunt was and now is a Justice of the Peace within and
for the Township of Kaskaskia and State of Illinois July
commissioned and acting as such and that full faith and
credit are due to his acts as such

In Testimony whereof I Ferdinand
Maxwell Clerk of said County Court
of Randolph County and State of Illinois
have hereunto subscribed my name &
affixed the seal of office this first day
of December eighteen hundred & forty three
F Maxwell

County of St. Louis , SS.
The State Of Missouri ,To Mr. Dufraun. J. B. Lesprauce
& Mr. LaRiviere Paschal Cerre
Michel Marle & D. TrudeauGreeting.

You are herby commanded, that setting aside all manner of excuse and delay, you appear
before the Judge of our Circuit Court , on the twenty first day
of May at the City of St. Louis , then and there to
testify and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy now pending in our said Court,
wherein Mar Charlotte x
plaintiff and Gabriel S Chouteau
defendant on the part of the plaintiff
and herein you are in no wise to fail.

Witness, John Ruland , Clerk of our said Court, with
the seal thereof hereto affixed, at office, in the City of St. Louis ,
this herewith day of May
in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and
forty one.
Jn Ruland Clerk, C.C.

In the Circuit Court

M.a J. B. Lesperance

x Lariviere
Dufrain
Dr. Trudeau
Michel Marle &
Paschal Cerre
for 21st May

Executed Wm Milburn Shrff
Fee $3.00
Larivire & Dufrain
an old frenchman
on 3rd St near Madam

County of St. Louis , SS.
The State Of Missouri ,To Pascal Cerre & Michel Marle
Greeting:

You are hereby commanded, that setting aside all manner of excuse and delay, you appear
before the Judge of our Circuit Court , on the 4th day of Junenext
at the City of St. Louis , then and there to
testify and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy now pending in our said Court,
wherein Mary Charlotte is
plaintiff andGabriel J. Chouteau is
defendant on the part of Plaintiff
and herein you are in no wise to fail.

Witness, John Ruland , Clerk of our said Court, with
the seal thereof hereto affixed, at office, in the City of St .
Louis , this twenty =ninth day of May
in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and
forty- four.
John Ruland Clerk, C.C.

for Plff4 June

X Pascal Cerre
X Michel Marle .

Excuted the 30th May
1844
Wm Milburn Shff

By Daniel Murphy Dpty
Fees $ 1.00

County Of St. Louis , SS.
The State Of Missouri ,To Antoine Smith , Michel Marle & Mdme
Tison Marianne Tison is
Greeting:

You are hereby commanded, that setting aside all manner of excuse and delay, you appear
before the Judge of our Circuit Court , on the 8th May 1845 at the City of St. Louis , then and there to
testify, and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy now pending in our said Court,
wherein Mary Charlotte
plaintiff and Gabriel S . Chouteau is
defendant on the part of Deft
and herein you are in no wise to fail.

Witness, John Ruland , Clerk of our said Court, with
the seal thereof hereto affixed, at office, in the City of St .
Louis , this 7 day of May
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
forty-five
Jn. Ruland Clerk, C.C.

. for deft for
8 May for

X Antoine Smith
X Mowe Marianne Tison
Michel Marly
Executed Wm Milburn Shrff
fee $1.50

County Of St. Louis , SS.
The State Of Missouri ,To Paschal Cerre & Michael Marlé
Dr. Trudeau
Greeting:

You are hereby commanded, that setting aside all manner of excuse and delay, you appear
before the Judge of our Circuit Court , on the 8th day of May
forthwith at the City of St. Louis , then and there to
testify and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy now pending in our said Court,
wherein Mary Charlotte is
plaintiff and Gabriel Chouteau
defendant on the part of the plaintiff
and herein you are in no wise to fail.

Witness, John Ruland , Clerk of our said Court, with
the seal thereof hereto affixed, at office, in the City of St .
Louis , this 8th day of May
in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and
forty- five.
John Ruland Clerk C.C.

In Circuit Court

Subpoena

X Paschal Cerre
X Michael Marlé
X Dr. Trudeau
Excuted Wm Wilburn Shrff
fee $ 1.50
Chy

County Of St. Louis , SS.
The State Of Missouri ,To Mr. Precie Michel Cuigian and
Mr. Fortain
Greeting:

You are hereby commanded, that setting aside all manner of excuse and delay, you appear
before the Judge of our Circuit Court , on the 21st May 1845
at the City of St. Louis , then and there to
testify, and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy now pending in our said Court,
wherein Mary Charlotte is
plaintiff and Gabriel S. Chouteau
defendant on the part of the plaintiff
and herein you are in no wise to fail.

Witness, John Ruland , Clerk of our said Court, with
the seal thereof hereto affixed, at office, in the City of St .
Louis , this 13th day of May
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
forty-five
Jn. Ruland Clerk, C.C.

In Circuit Court

Subpoena

X Precie
= Cuigian
Michel Fortain

Executed Wm Milburn Sheriff>
fee $ 1.12 1/2

County Of St. Louis , Sct.
State Of Missouri ,To the Sheriff of St. Louis County-Greeting:

We command you to attach Michel Marle , & Dr. Trudan
by thin bodies and then safely keep, so that you have thin bodies before
the Judge of our Circuit Court , now in session at the City of St. Louis , within and for the
County of St. Louis , on the 21st of May, (forthwith) 1845 then
and there to testify, and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy, now pending in
our said Circuit Court , between Mary Charlotte
plaintiff, and Gabriel S. Chouteau defendant, wherein
the said Marlé & Trudean have heretofore been summoned
on the part of the said plaintiff

Witness, John Ruland , Clerk of our said Circuit
Court , at the City of St. Louis , this 21st day of
May in the year of our Lord, one thousand
eight hundred and
forty-five
John Ruland Clerk, C.C.

attachment

X for Dr Trudeau
Executed Wm Milburn Shrff
fee $1.50
Costs to above event
of suit

County Of St. Louis , Sct.
State Of Missouri ,To the Sheriff of St. Louis County-Greeting:

We command you to attach Michel Marle
by his body and him safely keep, so that you have his body before
the Judge of our Circuit Court , now in session at the City of St. Louis , within and for the
County of St. Louis , on theforthwith 184 then
and there to testify, and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy, now pending in
our said Circuit Court , between Charlotte
plaintiff, and G. S. Chouteau defendant, wherein
the said has heretofore been summoned
on the part of the said dft

Witness, John Ruland , Clerk of our said Circuit
Court , at the City of St. Louis , this 21 Day Of
May in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and forty-five
John Ruland Clerk, C.C.

att.

X Mich Marli
Executed Wm Milburn Sheriff
fee $1.50.
Costs to above
event wit

County Of St. Louis , SS.
The State Of Missouri ,To PaschelCerré
Greeting:

You are hereby commanded, that setting aside all manner of excuse and delay, you appear
before the Judge of our Circuit Court , on the 22nd day of May
forthwith at the City of St. Louis , then and there to
testify and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy now pending in our said Court,
wherein Mary Charlotte is
plaintiff and Gabriel S. Chouteau
defendant on the part of the plaintiff
and herein you are in no wise to fail.

Witness, John Ruland , Clerk of our said Court, with
the seal thereof hereto affixed, at office, in the City of St .
Louis , this 22 day of May
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
forty five
Jno. Ruland Clerk, C.C.

Spa

X P. Cerre
Executed Wm Milburn Sheriff

Refund - May 22. 1845

If the Jury believes from the testimony
that that it is doubtful who their slavery.
at in at the, time spoken of
by the witnesses: the plaintiff is intitled
to the benefit of doubt. for the woman, that the
policy of Government an
in favor. of freedom.

refused
May 22. 1845

Refused
May 22 1845

If they believe from the testimony that then was
no law of the government of Canada , authorizing
the existence of slavery in that county, they will
find for the plaintiff.

Refused May 22. 1845

If they believe from the testimony that
Rose was brought to the and kept. in the
North Western territory - and brought to
Missouri from plea in before the ratification of
in that case, the Treaty
would have no effect upon her

Refused
May 22. 1845

If the jury from the testimony believe that at the time of
the birthof Rose the plaintiff motherand subsequent to that time and up to the time
of the plaintiff Rose of the plaintiffs mother Canada , slavery did not
exist in said promise and was not recongized by the
laws of that County as property then they will find
for the plaintiff.

Refused May 22d '45

2. If they believe from the testimony that the plaintiffs
mother was a slave in Canada , and was held in
servitude in the North Western territory north ward of the Ohio river, of the and within the limits of the United States aforesaid of Territory Mother
she became free by operation of law and they will
find for the plaintiffs.

RefusedGiven
May 22. 1845

3. and .
Chain - in. both: in the North Western
territory. and within the Counti of
the United States and why slavery was
prohibited by The Ordinance of Con
gress passed in 1787

If the Jury believes from the ordinance that it
is doubtful whether Rose was a slave in
Canada or not the Jury are not authorized
to find for the plaintiff on that account,
as the law of Missouri the
of proof on the plaintiff to make out
her freedom

defts inst.

refused
May 22. 1845

Given May 22, 1845

1. If the jury believes from the Evidence
that during the time Rose__ the matter of Shff;
resided or remained in the Province of
Canada - Slavery or involuntary
servitude, did not exist there, either
by positive law, or by the usage &
practice of the inhabitants of that Province
they will find the issue for the plaintiff
the jury shall believe four
the Evidence that during the time said
Rose remaind in said Province, she
was held in slavery or involuntary
servitude_

Given May 22. 1845

2 If the jury believe from the Evidence that
Rose . while she remained in Canada
was held in Slavery or involuntary servitude,,
that afterwards she was to Prairie
Du, Chein in the North Western Territory,
& there held in such servitude, after the passage of the ordinance of 1787 and after
the possession of Praire Du, Chein as a
Military had been relinqu=
-ished by the subjects of Great Britian
in such Cau the said Rose became
free by operation of lord -
jury will find for the plaintiff_

given
May 22. 1845

Given-May 22.1845

4 If the Jury believe from the evidence that
blacks were actually held in slavery in Canada at the
time where Rose had there, and that. she was
held & claimed as a slave there, the Jury May
that she was a slave.

Given- May 22 1845

5 If the Jury find from the evidence that that blacks
were actually held in slavery in Canada at
the time when Rose had there, & that she
was held & claimed as a slave there, the jury
are bound to presume she was a slave,
unless the plaintiff has shown some law
forbidding slavery there.

Given May 22. 1845

6 That the plaintiff has not given in evidence
any law forbidding negro slavery in Canada :
and the Jury are not authorized to
presume any such law.

Given- May 22 1845

7 That a law forbidding slavery in Canada
if any such existed, is a matter which the
plaintiff is bound to prove if material to
her case
see page 6 of opinion

Defts instructions
given. May 22. 1845

In the St Louis Circuit Court
May 24th 1845

And now the said plaintiff
by her Attorney, comes & moves the Court, to
set aside the verdict rendered in the above
suit, & grant a new trial for the following reasons
biz 1st Because the verdict was against the evidence
2nd Because the verdict was against, the weight of evidence,
3rd Because the verdict was against the Law & Evidence
4th Because the Court refused evidence of the
plaintiff to be given to the jury which should have
been given

5th Because the Court allowed evidence to be
given to the jury for the deft which should have
been refused

6 Because the instructions given by the Court
were not in accordance with the evidence,

7 Because Instructions given by the Court were
contrary to Law.

8 Because instructions asked by the plaintiff
were refused, when they should have been given

9 Because instructions were given for the
defendant which should have been refused,

10 Because the Court refused, modified, & destroy-
ed the application of the instruction asked by the
plaintiff, denying the right of British subjects
or traders residing within the United States to
hold a slave in defiance of the Laws of Congress
when & where American Citizens were deprived of it,

1st 2nd '2d

Henry L Cooks
Plff Atty

Motion for Set=
ting aside the
verdict & granting
new trial, for
reasons, filed

Cobb
plff Atty
filed 26 May 1845
Jn Ruland Clk

In the St Louis Circuit Court
April Term 1845

And the said Mary Char=
lotte plaintiff prays an appeal from
the decision of the Circuit Court of St Louis
County in the above named cause to
the Supreme Court of this State

And thereupon the said Mary Charlotte
makes oath & says, that she believes herself
aggrieved by the decesion of the Court
in this case & that she does not appeal
for vexation or delay, but in truth that
justice may be done.

Mary her X Charlotte
mark
Sworn & Subscribed
this 24th June 1845
before sue,
John Ruland Clk St Louis
Circuit Court

In the St Louis Circuit Court
April Term 1845

Motion for Appeal
with affidavit ,

Cobb , Atty
for Plf
filed July of 1845
Jn Ruland Clk

In the St Louis Circuit Court
April Term 1844
21st May 1845

Be it remembered that at
the commencement of the trial of the above
entitled suit, Paschal L.Cerre was called
on behalf of the plaintiff, who being duly
sworn said that he knew the parties in this
suit, that defendant held plaintiff as a slave
that he knew Rose plffs mother, knew her at
as a servant there, dont know
the time thinks it was in 1794, saw her fre=
quently there, it was in June 1794, he (writ) was not
there in 93, She ( Rose ) was a cook in the
house of Eutienne Champion whether he
claimed her dont know, Witness remained
there 2 or 2 1/2 months did not know who she
belonged to never knew her any where else, per
haps he was there in 95 Rose came here in
94 or 95 knew her as belonging to Stork
Witness was born in Canada left there
when 20 years old & has not there
Since dont know whether blacks existed
in Canada , saw a negro there who was
a slave at St Louis , but whether he was a
slave there or not cannot tell, saw sev=
eral blacks there, our was executioner, dont
know an instance where are was held as slave
this was in 1787 -82 - 54 6 - 7, travelled
through that Country, with his father
bought slaves in United States , but left them
on this side of the line
Witness & his father went to Canada , the slaves
were deposited close by the line within the U.S.
did not take the negroes into Canada for
fea they would become free, got there outfit
in Canada & then cause to this Country,
First time witness left Canada he was four
cause to this Country, writ back to Canada in
1781, & Stayed till 1787 then went to Virginia &
back to Canada , same year, then left again
for this Country. Did not know of the Existance
of Slavery in Canada , did not see any person
held as a slave there, was then never
exercised his right of citizenship, never re=
sided there long enough to exercise it, was
there when 20 years old in 94, was
acquainted with the Country, would not say
he was will acquainted with the Country,
remained there from 91 to 94 did not pay
any attitude to Laws of Country,
never heard of a slave being held there,
if it was as general there as here would
have known it if it was the wants
have known it saw Rose at when
he stopped there on his way from Canada to
St Louis .

Was at Montreal from 91. to 94 In 91 his
father took Seven negroes to Montreal , they
are there perhaps, he gave a girl
to his (witness) sister residing then,
then, the other 6 came back, were boatman
among those six were the two he bought at
Albany, dont know what his sister did
with the girl was 13 years old sister lived
in the girl was not there with her
in June or July 94. They were , & looked at as curiosities..

Saw Rose at & next saw her at
St Louis , when he saw her at St. Louis it
Chouteau held her as a slave Chouteau got
her from a she never left
St Louis for on Prairie Du Chein
to his knowledge

Never heard Chouteau say when she was
brought from or any thing about it never
heard deft say any thing about it

The girl mentioned before as being given
by his father & his sister residing in Canada
was given to her in St Louis & she was with
her, whether she was a slave in Canada dont
know girl was not with her in 1794, knows
nothing about acts of Father & Sister aforesaid girl
Michel Mark being duly Sworn said they
he was born in Montreal Canada about the
year 1772 & left them when 10 years old
had then once since remained
here one year & his father sent him back
& he then passed the winter then 11 years old,
dont remember much that took place then
did not go out much, knew Rose , knew
her at Mackinaw_ he saw at
once only - & saw her at
St Louis

Saw Rose at Prairie Du Chein living with
Mr. Stork who was a merchant work seen
him here, employes with him, & those
was Cook, Cannot say the year he saw her
he saw her at Prairie Du Chein did not
see many blacks about there, did not see
any other negro residing there. Dont know
anything of Slavery in Canada or being
bought & sold they; is 73 years old, if slavery
had been there he had knowledge enough
to have known it, but never heard tell of any
Knew a slave of St George who was free, a
voyager, a mulatto. Montreal was not
principal place but Quebec , Montreal way
a large place, cannot answer whether ptf
is child of Rose , She always passed as child of Rose
the person he had seen at Prairie Du Chein
seen pltf. & her mother Rose together frequently at the Chouteau
& plt was always was always represented by the family as day the of

There was no fort or garrison at Prairie du
Chein at the time he saw Rose then, that
there were no English troops there, that
there was no English pass there, nor with a
hundred miles of the place, the nearestan
he knew of was at Rock river.

There were English troops at Rock river, it
was an english post.
At another time when he was there several
men were killed then, by Campbell .
When he saw Rose at Mackinaw he may
have been twenty one or twenty two years old,
the English were then in possession them
& made Saw no
troops at Prairie Du Chein an then there left Mackinaw & to saw
& back to St Louis twice saw Rose at Prairie De Chein him
2. & last time witness went to New Orleans
& came back to St Louis he saw Rose in the
possession of
Was not for from two years from time he
saw Rose at Mackinaw till he saw he
was near eleven years old when last in Canada
passed the winter then there did nothing
at all.

May 22nd 1845

Mr Dufraine being duly sworn said that
he was born in Quebec is between 72, & 75 years old,
lived in Canada & left there in 93 in his 23rd year
knew something of customs of Canada ,
has seen negros there two or three but were
not considered Slaves, never knew of sales
of Slaves there, saw but few negroes there
2, 3, or 4, would have known it if there had been
slavery there. Cant tell whether they were bound
or free, but they seemed to go where they
pleased never heard of slavery existing
then in Canada . Knows nothing of Rose
she was not from his part of the Country, was
acquainted in Quebec & curious up to
was in Montreal as he was coming to this
County. Stopped there 7 or 8 day saw no
negroes there at all never has been back
to Canada , did not come by Prairie du
Chein , went to Mackinaw from Canada
Did not travel far while living at Quebec
only in surrounding parishes,reads a little
writes a little, got schooling in Quebec , was a
young man & does not recollect that there was
a parliament.
3 The English were at
what he was there law no blacks there;
the first he came left Canada in 1793 & he
to winter up the Mississippi & went to
Prarie De Chein_ the English were at
Prairie De Chein then_ the there blacks
there_

Pierre La riviere being duly sworn said
that he had lived in Canada , Came here 40
years ago & was then 20 or 21 years old,
know a little of the Laws & customes in Canada
raised in Montreal dont know of any per=
sons held as slaves there, has no knowledge
of any such thing he woreheard any such
thing spoken of there if it had existed
there he should have known it, as he went
around about the town frequently & was for
sometime a servant himself, knew two
neegroes who were voyagers & who saw they
were free, nobody pretended to claim them
& that they were there when he left Canada .
knew how to read or write, though
Mackinaw & Prairie de Chein when he em=
igrates
to St Louis

Michel Fontaine being duly sworn saw
he was born in Quebec is 67 years old lived
in Quebec 17 years & 6 in Montreal was near
23 years old when he left Montreal , dont know
much about laws & Customes.
King governed
no parliament there never heard of slavery
there, did not know what it was till he
came here, travelled through the whole of
Canada from end to end, if Slavery existed
there would have known it never heard
his speak of it, saw a few negros
there who worked about as he did & were free
knew Rose 44 years ago at Chouteaus
plaintiff passed as daughter of Rose dont know
where Rose came from.

Did not know all persons of Canada had been
from one end of Canada to the other twice.
not for pleasure but on St Lawrence as voyager
Did not go through Lakes as high as Detroit
went through Detroit in coming here
never went through Canada by land
was well acquainted with Montreal & Que=
bec & did not go any distance to
but around neighboring parishes had been
from Quebec to Montreal in different ways
& eighteen leagues some other way
Three rivers is half way to Montreal & is
20 leagues from Each, most of business
was done at Quebec Montrealpeople
of the County traded in those places.

Paschel L Cerre being recalled testified that
it Chouteau swore conversed with him about Rose
understood she was brought from Montreal &
somebody said she was brought from Albany
dont know when she was bought there to
Mackinaw never knew she belonged to
Stork spoke with Rose who told her when she lived in Montreal the ne=
groes there attracted attention of the people there
like do here
P. Menard died last fall, knew him as re=
siding at Kaskaskia . Knew slaves in Kas
kaskia as early as 1777 or 78, when 4 or 5 years old
Witness Father had way there, Menard was
an rest near & born in Canada near
Montreal was much employed by. States
Plff then gave in Evidence a convoyance
of Rose by Todd to Didier a translation of which
was read by counsel & is as follows (here translation)
also a convoyance from Didie to Chouteau a translation
of which was seant by consent is as follows (here )

Plaintiff then offered by counsel Murrays His=
toryof British America from its earliest
therewith in two volumens No. 5 C1. & C11 of the
Family Library. & read from the first volumes
the preface to first paragraph on 288th page
which way by consent be read in the Supreme
Court as a part of this record.

Plaintiff counsel then officed to read from the
2nd of said History of British , begin=
ing at the 78th page about two pages; but the
Court decided that he should not read from said
Second Vol. to which decision of the Court ex=
ception was taken by him, at the time.
which saidsecond volume may by consent
be offered before the supreme Court, as if it were
a part of this record

And here the plaintiff closed his case
The defendant then by his counsel opens his case and read in
evidence the speech of General Washington
to the Congress of the United States delivered
on the day of December 1796 also the treaty
of Amity Commerce & Navigation, between
his Britanic Majesty & the United States of Amer=
ica, signed by the of both
nations on the 19th November 1794 which
by consent may be read in the Supreme
Court from any legal printed book in which
they may be found as part of this record.
Defts. counsel then read the deposition of Pierre
Menard which is in the following word (with)
(here insert deposition)

Smith a witness for defendant being duly Sworn said
that he was 74 years old born in Montreal Can
ada, left Canada 54 years ago was between
20 & 21 years old there were slaves there they but
counsel swore they were slaves for life Col.

had four slaves Major Campbell & Mr.
George one mulatto. Several others had some
Cannot recollect them lived opposite Col.
does not know the ages of the Slaves they were
from 20 to 30 years old. Saw them frequently
for 10 or 12 years in the house left them there
was acquainted with them & was every day in
the house for some purpose, never trav=
elled
till he came . Never said negro
sold them in Canada , has seen many black
persons there, not many, some; but cannot
tell their condition employed in the house as
domestic servants, had seen them in other hom=
ses
than three, unwilling to swear they were slaves,
always thought they were from their
of acting, dont know whether any
the rights to sell them never knew them sold
more white persons in some situtation there,
many of them but did not consider them slaves
Understood from childhood negros will salves
did not know any thing about law there then
never infounded himself them. Clop
was Colonel in army. those negroes came
there with Clop. when he went to reside there

Dont know whether they were hired
or bound or slaves, it appeared Clop claimed
them as his, never asked Clop whether they
were slaves does not know as to their
condition, knew they were Slaves becuase
they were always there at home & did not lease

the house, does not know whether they
were any slaves in Canada on oh is igno=
rant whether there were any slaves in Canada
before or after he was there, was never in any
other Country but Canada & coming here, his
father & mother made a of him as he
was too much a fool for Lawyer, Negroes
were better dressed there than whites, & did
same duty as whites. Mayor Campbell was in
the Army too. M. George was an old French
Officer, There were otheres who had slaves
employed about the house but does not
4 recollect their names, know nothing about slavery there.
as h had been about little & was young.
5 Concluded those negroes there were slaves after
he came to this Country an account of see
ing, slaves in this country afterwards.

witness for defendant testified &
Madam_____ Tessou said she was born in
Montreal & left there 53 or 54 years ago
Rose when she was sold on Public
at Montreal about two years before
the witness left to come here, saw Rose here
afterwards next time . It was
Joseph Verlagette, Rose was not sold but
changed for a and several others;
knew other slves there, every body knew
them as slaves of their masters, Knew Col
Clop & Major Compbell who were
6 Her made her work to make clothes for
these slaves, knew no other slaves there for
people prefered to be waited on by people of their own Color

Was going on twenty four years of age when
she left Canada, Husband & four children
came with her.

According to her knowledge about 7 or 8
years before she left Canada , when Amer=
icans cause there Officers came with slaves;
the offices belonged to the Army which was
there then the blacks living with Clop
& Campbell were understood to be slaves
of their Masters by her always knew
them as slaves, no body ever spoke of it,
if was a matter not mentioned, always
understood they were slaves, they were al=
ways spoken of as slaves of Col. Clop &
were distinguished by their clothes, did not
know where they came from, they were not
bound but were their property

Dont know when those negors came from
many of them were raised in Town Several of
those of Clop & Campbell were raised in the
place, the matters brought their families
there with their children, they belonged to
Clop as property, thewitness knows it as
they were spoken of as his property he
owned the father & mother & the children grew
up there were heard Clop or Compbell say
they were their property, dont know of there
being paid, they were well treated & clothed
& worked only at there matters, never saw
the masters whip the slaves, never knew them
whipped in Canada , They took same care of
them as if they were white, were same as
white persons when Master did not want them,
& visted & went where they chose she (Witness )
never left the town of Montreal till she came here.

7 There is a great difference between slaves
in Canada & here. dont know wherein they were property
in Canada , were treated very differently there,
dont know who sold Rose there, or that
she was sold. Americans brought her to
Montreal . She witness heard that negroes were
to be sold for , that the man want off with
the horse & returned with Rose without the horse
She (witness) does not know that Rose was
Sold or charged for horse at Public plea
does not know that she was charged or sold
at all in Canada , did not see any body sold
these, Joseph Vergrtte, witness Uncle told her (witness) he
bought Rose there, never talked with Rose
Uncle, Rose spoke French & her
only French, thinks Rose was 17, 18 or 19
years old. The house that Joseph said he
gave for Rose was a fine large one, a boy
dont know the value, Joseph was a Horse=
jockey & never bought low priced horses
thinks horse have worth 100
8 dollars, worth more than 50 dollars, but
to tell the truth knows nothing about the price
Heard that Rose was bought from another
place to be sold, left Canada two years
after that time & Rose was with same Master
Saw her owner at Didiers dont remember the
time
and here the defendant closed his case,
Paschal L. Cerré being recalled by plaintiff
& testified that he was in Montreal in 1791
&
staid till 1794 was well acquianted in
Montreal at that time, was part of the time
clerk for a Merchant, was frequently around
in different parts of the Town, & was ac=
quainted
with most of the area, that the
custom & usage of slavery never existed there
as far as he knows, & if it had existed there
he would have known it, was near 18 years
to when he went there in 91 Knew Camp=
bell & Clop, was at Clop never knew any
blacks about Clop, did not know Clop
wll, was familiarly aquainted with Campb
bell visited him frequently, did not see
any black about him, know the St
Georges they were employed by Govenor
Never saw any black persons in their pos=
session, Never saw any black people
around Clop would not have taken such
notice when he knew Clop as he was too young
only 8 years old remembers him as a child of
age ; was always observant, one
judge from him (witness) what he was
by what he is now (active & intelligent)
If Major Campbell had had slaves (witness)
would have known it, when he was eighteen
years of age

And this was all the evidence in the case
After the argreements of Counsel were closed
the Court gave the following instructions
9 (here insert said instructions) to which
plaintiff excepted at the time.

The following instructions there asked for by
the plaintiff were refused by the Court.
(here insert plaintiffs instructions refused,
to which refusal plaintiff excepted at the time,
The defendant there asked for the following
instructions (here insert defendants instruc=
tions given) & they are given by the Court
to which plaintiff expected at the time,
The case being then given to the jury, they
returned a for the defendant the following verdict
(here insert verdict)

Motion was then duly read by plaintiff
to set aside the verdict & grant a new trial
for certain reasons filed which motion
& reasons are in the following word to wit
(here insert motion for new trial with reasons filed)
which motion being overruled by the Court
& exception taken by the plaintiff at
the time, the plaintiff now brings her
bill of exceptions & pray the Court & sign
the same which is accordingly done
this 2d July 1845-

John M Krum
B

In the St Louis Circuit Court
April Term 1845

Bill of Exceptions

Cobb . Atty for Plt
filed July 1st 1845
Jn Ruland Clk

Supreme Court of Missouri March Term 1847.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court .
Now at this day comes again the said appellee
by his attorney, and the court here being now sufficiently advised as
to the motion filed herein to dismiss said cause, do consider and
adjudge that the same be sustained, and that the said appeal be
dismissed, - it is further considered by the court that she said
applicant take nothing by her said appeal, and that the said appellee
go thereof without day.

State of Missouri ss.

I Hampton L. Boon Clerk of the Supreme Court of
the State of Missouri do hereby certify, that the foregoing is a full,
time and perfect transcript of a judgment of the said Supreme Court
in the case of Mary Charlotte appellant and Gabriel S Chouteau
appellee, on appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County.

Given under my hand with the seal of
said Court affixed, at office in Jefferson
City , the 12th day of April AD 1847.
H. L. Boon

Transcript from Supreme Court

Filed August 7th 1847
Jn. Ruland Clerk

In the St. Louis Circuit Court
State of Missouri .To the above named plaintiff.

You are hereby notified, that Depositions of Witnesses to be read in evidence in the above
cause, on the part of defendant will be taken at the office
of the clerk of the Circuit Court , in the
Court House
in the County of St. Louis and State of Missouri on the Sixth
day of Febuary 1849 between the hours of 8 o'clock in the forenoon, and 6 o'clock in
the afternoon: and that the taking of said depositions, if not completed on that day, will be
continued from day to day, at the same place and betwen the same hours, till completed.

Gabriel S. Chouteau
by his attorneys.

Served this notice in the county of St. Louis
this 2nd day of February 1849 by delivering a
true copy thereof to Mary Charlotte

Louis T . Labeaume Shff
By J. C. Brown Depty
fee 50¢

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court .

Now as this day came again the parties aforesaid
by their respective attornies, and the Court here being now
sufficiently advised of and concerning the premises, do
consider and adjudge that the Judgement aforesaid,
in form aforesaid, by the said Circuit Court ,
be reversed, annulled and for nought held and esteemed,
and the cause remanded to the said Circuit Court
for further proceedings in conformity to the opinion of this
Court herein delivered; and it is further considered by
the Court that the said appellant recover against
the said appellee her cost and charges herein expended
and have thereof execution.

State of Missouri Sct.

I, William E Clerk of the
Supreme Court of the State of Missouri , certify that
the foregoing is a full, true and complete transcripts
of the judgment of said Superme Court, entered of
record at the October Term thereof 1847, in the case
wherein Mary Charlotte was appellant and Gabriel
S.Chouteau was appellee, on appeal from the Saint
Louis Circuit Court .

Given under my hand with the
seal of said Court affixed at
office in the City of Jefferson on
the eighth day of June 1852.
Wm E.

There is no evidence before the jury suf
ficient to establish that plaintiff is
entitled to her freedom
filed Oct 13. '53

County Of St. Louis , ss.
The State Of Missouri ,To Pascal Cerre , Peter Rayoul, Rowaine Dufresne
Michel Fontain, Jaques Bonean, Michel Marle and
August Dufresne
Greeting:

You are hereby Commanded, that setting aside all manner of excuse and delay, you
appear before our Circuit Court for the County aforesaid, on the thirteenth 14th
day of September 1853 at the City of St. Louis , then and there to testify
and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy now pending in our said Court,
wherein Mary Charlotte is
plaintiff and Gabriel S. Chouteau
defendant on the part of the Plaintiff
and herin you are in no wise to fail.

Witness, Michael S. Cerre , Clerk of our said Court,
with the seal thereof hereto affixed, at office, in
the City of St. Louis , this tenth day
of September in the year of our Lord one
thousand eight hundred and fifty three
M. S . Cerré Clerk C.C.

E

In Circuit Court

Spa.

P. Cerre
P. Payout
R. Dufresne
M. Fontaine
J. Boneau
M. Marlé
A. Dufresne
for 13th. Sept. 53.

Executed this writ in the County of St. Louis
on the 19th day of September 1859 by sending
the same to the within named Auguste Dufrene
the others not found in my County

Jn M Wimer Shff
by G. Bornstein Dpty

Fee50 ¢non est160$1.10

In the St Louis Circuit - Court
of St. Louis County State of Missouri .To the above named defendant

You are hereby notified, that depositions of witnesses, to be read in evidence in the above entitled
cause, on the part of the plaintiff will be taken at the
the office of B No 49 Chestnut St Louis
in the County of St. Louis and State of Missouri on
the third day of October 1853, between the hours of eight
o'clock in the forenoon, and five o'clock in the afternoon, and that the taking of said depositions,
if not completed on that day, will be contin ed from day to day, at the same place, and between the
same hours, till completed.

Cobb
& Gararchi for Plf

Served this notice in the County of St. Louis
on the 28th day of September 1853, by delivering
to the within named Gabriel A. Chouteau a true
copy of the same

John M Wimer
Sheff
By S. Chadbounne
Deputy
$ 1.00

County Of St. Louis , ss.
The State Of Missouri ,To Francois
Greeting:

You Are Hereby Commanded, that setting aside all manner of excuse and delay,
you appear before our Circuit Court for the County aforesaid, on the 10th day of
October 1853 at the City of St. Louis , then and there
to testify, and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy now pending in our said
Court, wherein Mary Charlotte is
plaintiff and Gabriel S Chouteau is
defendant on the part of defendant
and herein you are in no wise to fail.

Witness, Michael S. Cerre , Clerk of our said Court,
with the seal thereof hereto affixed, at office,
in the City of St. Louis , this 6th
day of October in the year of
our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
fifty One- three
M. S . Cerré Clerk C.C.

St. Louis Cir Court

Sub for defts

xFrancois Tison
nPlorissant
The witness is
sick in Bed
In Oct 10, 53

Executed this writ in St. Louis County
on the 8 day October 1853 by having
a Copy of the same for
the with in named witness at his
usual place of abode with a white
number of his family above the age
of fifteen years

Francis Tison

J. M.. Wimer
Sheriff
J H. Douglass
Depty
50

M. Barlow will please not to fail to he present
tomorrow, as this case is now pending .
County Of St. Louis , ss.
The State Of Missouri ,To Joseph C. Barlow.
Greeting:

You are hereby Commanded, that setting aside all manner of excuse and delay, you
appear before our Circuit Court for the County aforesaid, on the Thirteenth day
of October 1853at 9 A.M. at the City of St. Louis , then and there to testify,
and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy now pending in our said Court,
wherein Mary Charlotte (of color) is
plaintiff and Gabriel Chouteau is
defendant on the part of the defen Plaintiff
and herein you are in no wise to fail.

Witness, Michael S. Cerre , Clerk of our said Court,
with the seal thereof hereto affixed, at office, in
the City of St. Louis , this twelfth day
of October in the year of our Lord one
thousand eight hundred and fifty three -
M JCerre Clerk C.C.

subp.. for Pltff.

Joseph C. Barlow.

4.95

110

150

755

Executed this writ in the County of St. Louis
on the 12th day of September 1853, by seeking
the same to the within named witness

Jn M Wimer Shff
by G. Bornstein Dpy
Fee 50 ¢

County Of St. Louis , ss.
The State Of Missouri ,To Aug. Dufresne
Greeting:

You are hereby Commanded, that, setting aside all manner of excuse and delay, you
appear before our Circuit Court for the County aforesaid, on the forthwith
at the City of St. Louis , then and there to testify,
and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy now pending in our said Court,
wherein Mary Charlotte is
plaintiff and G. S. Chouteau is
defendant on the part of plaintiff
and herein you are in no wise to fail.

Witness, Michael S. Cerre , Clerk of our said Court,
with the seal thereof hereto affixed, at office, in
the City of St. Louis , this 12
day of October in the year of our Lord
one thousand eight hundred and fifty - three
M S Cerré Clerk C.C.

Executed this writ in the County of St .
Louis on the 12 of October by reading
the same to the within named
witness

Jn M Wimer Shff
by G. Bornstein Dpy
Fee 50 ¢

Cir Court

for plff

A. Dufrene

State Of Missouri ,
County Of St. Louis ,
sct.To the Sheriff of St. Louis County - Greeting:

We command you to attach Joseph C. Barlow
by his body and him safely keep, so that you have his body
before the Judge of our Circuit Court , now in session at the City of St. Louis , within and
for the County of St. Louis ,on theforth with 185
then and there to testify, and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy, now
pending in our said Circuit Court , between Mary Charlotte (of color)
plaintiff, and Gabriel S. Chouteau
defendant, wherein the said Jn. C. Barlow
has heretofore been summoned on the part of
the said plaintiff

Witness, Michael S. Cerre , Clerk of said Circuit Court ,
at the City of St. Louis , this thirteenth
day of October in the year of our Lord, one
thousand eight hundred and fifty three -
M. S . Cerré Clerk C.C.

Executed this attachment on the 19th day of October
1853, by having the body of Barlow before
the St Louis Circuit Court

Jn M. Wimer Shff
by G. Bornstein Dpy
Fee $ 1.00

Cir Court
Oct 13 1853

Attachment

Joseph . C. Barlow

In the Circuit Court
of St. Louis County
April Term 1853

And now at this day comes the said plain-
tiff by her attorneys and moves the court to set
aside the Judgment of non suit in this case
and to grant the said plaintiff a new
trial for the following reasons

1st Because the said plaintiff was surprised
by the objection of Defendants to the admission
or evidence of the and certified copies of the
two deeds () from Andrew Todd to Joseph Didier and
of Joseph Didier to Auguste Chouteau (here set out
said copies)

2nd because the court erred in refusing to allow
said deeds to be given in evidence to the jury-

3rd because the court erred in refusing to admit
legal and competent evidence offered by the
plaintiff

4th Because the court erred in instructing the
jury that there was no evidence before them
authorising them to find a verdict for said
plaintiff.

5th because the court otherwise erred on the said
Judgment of non suit was otherwise erroneaus and void.

Cobb & Gararchi
for plaintiff.

Motion to set aside
non suit & grant a
new trial

Filed, October 15th 1853.
M. S.Cerré, Clk

In the St Louis Circuit Court .

Be it remembered that on
this day come Henry Cobb who being
duly sworn on his oath says that
he is counsel for the plaintiff in the
above entitled suit, & that he was surprised
by the refusal of the defendant to allow
the duly certified copies of the deeds
from Todd to Didier & of Didier to
Chouteau to be received in evidence
on the last trial of this cause as they
had been previously admitted by this
defendant on the trials of this cause
& also of the cause of Pierre & Chouteau

Henry Cobb
Sworn to & Subscribed before me
this 15th Octo: 1853
M S Cerre Clk

Filed Oct 15 1853

M S Cerré Clk

In the Circuit Court
for St Louis .

Be it remembered that on
the trial of this cause on the 12th
Oct. 1853. Auguste Dufresne witness
for the plaintiff testified as followes
I know the parties to this suit. I knew
that Auguste Chouteau claimed the
plaintiff as his property thirty five
years ago when she was a little thing
I knew Charlotte's mother her name
was Rose , she was the, mother of Char=
lotte, Peter & Louis. I dont know who owned her ( Charlotte ) in 1843 - She hopes
as a slave, Rose was held in slavery
by Auguste Chouteau . I knew Charlotte
about 35 years ago & she was then I suppose
4 or 5 years of age.

Crop Exd. I was born in 1802
under the agreement of Counsel the testimo
ny of Paschal Cerre , Pierre Rayant,
Roman Dufusue, Michel Fortain ,
Jaques Bounean & Michel Marlé
witnesses for the plaintiff was there read
as follows to wit. (Here insert Testimony for
plaintiff reported by D. C. on file)
the deposition of the Hon Judge James Reid
of Canada witness for the plaintiff was their read by excepting
the answer to the 13th question which
was objected to by defendants Counsel on
trial. Here in deposition of J. Reid)
the Deposition of the Hon Judge Samuel Gale
witness for the plaintiff was there read ex=
cepting the answer to the 12th question
which was objected to by the defendants
Counsel on trial (here insert deposition of S. Gale)
Joseph C. Barlow witness for plaintiff
being sworn said he knew the to
this suit that Angela, daughter of Char=
lotte to his employment after this suit
was commenced, Charlotte lived by herelf.
Charlotte lived with Madam Cerre
Chouteau widow of Auguste Chouteau
in her family as a servant, I never knew
any wages to be paid to Charlotte or any
contract of to have existed
between Charlotte & Madam Chouteau .
does not know whether defendant
claims her as his slave

A duly certified from the
Inventory of the Estate of Cerre
Chouteau, made by Gabriel S. Chouteau
. was then read and in Evidence as follows:
(Here insert it)

The deposition of Samuel
Monk, of Canada witness for plaintiff
was and as follows, towit:

(Here insert monks deposition)
The certified from Canada of the case of Robert alias Robin
was then read in evidence by plaintiffs counsel
as follows towit: (Here insert it)

The Kings Proclamation dated 7 Oct.
1763
was then and as follows towit:

(Here insert proclamation)
The following document to by or she
A copy of Action 666 being a deed
from Andrew Todd conveying Rose to
Didier was then offered in Evidence
for informing it was

The plaintiff offered in evidence the
following document property to be a copy
of Action 666, being or purporting to be
a deed from Andrew Todd conveying Rose
to Didier was slave objected to by
defendant for
& because it was at best only a copy
to be or
for: as to by the Court &
plaintiff counsel excepted at the time to
the action of the court and
. (here insert the document or
the in it)

The following was to be, a
(here in
out )

The plaintiff offered in the
following document to be a
copy of 750. being to
to be a deed from to
was to by defendant for
the said as the document
in above . the
the as to
counsel excepted.

(here the
therein from to )

The following was agreed to be a counsel
document (here in
sert)

The plaintiff offered in the
following document to be a
copy of action 150. being in
to be a deed from Didier to Any. Chouteau
what was to by defendant. for the same reasons as the documents
in last above . the
count the it copy as to & plaintiffs
counsel .
(here the document &
from Didier to Chouteau ) The plantiff then offered to to read
from a from a named book from the
offers the following: (here insert
full what was offered. It to be
on the time) the
in the office of the or
in the keeping of the plaintiff, which
was objected to by the defendant for the same
names. stated above the copies above
mentioned, which was sentenced
by the court & plaintiffs counsel ex
cepted,
this was all the
in the case.

Whereupon in motion of the
defendants counsel the court gave the
following the jury (here
insert dated 13th Oct 1853) For which
the plaintiff counsel ex
cepted.

Plaintiffs counsel therefore book
a non suit with have itself
aside the same opens the following motion
towit (here motin &
affidavit)

Whereto motion was by
the Court.
at the to the Counts his bill of exceptions
opens the court the same
which is by

A. Hamilton

In Circuit Court

Bill of Exceptions

Filed October 22d 1853 M. S. Cerre , Clk
7 1/25

In Circuit Court

Bill of exceptions

Filed October 22d 1853 M. S. Cerre , Clk
7 1/25

Be it remembered
that on this 6th day of Dec 1853
in open Court appeared Henry Cobb Counsel for plaintiff in the
above suit, & States that a writ
of error has been issued in this
case, that the plaintiff has, as
affiant is informed & belives,
been removed with her children
to the commence jail of St Louis County,
by the orders of the defendants
& further that she & they are
about to be removed out of the
jurisdiction of the Court. by
the orders of the said defendant.
& further that she and they
are in danger of being so removed
out of the jurisdiction of the found,
to day on board a Steam boats
bound for the City of New Orleans
in the State of Louisana

Henry Cobb Signed Sworn to
before me this 6th
December 1853. M. S . Cerré Clk

Filed December 6
1853

M. S . Cerré Clk

Know all men by these presents that me Alexander
J. P. Garesché, as principal, and Henry Cobb ,
as security, are held and firmly bound into the
State of Missouri , in the and just sum of
Six Thousand Dollars, for the payment of
which, we bind ourselves, Executors, ad
ministrators and assigns, firmly by these
presents.

Given under our hands and seals
this seventh day of December, 1853,
The condition of this obligation is such that,
whereas, John M Wemier, Sheriff of the County
of St Louis , State aforesaid, by virture of an
order made by the St. Louis Circuit Court on
the sixth day of December 1853, in a certain
suit, pending in said Court, in which Mary
Charlotte is Plaintiff and Gabriel S. Chouteau
is defendant, hes this day hired to the said
A. Q. P. Sareche, the said Mary Charlotte at
the price of six dollars per month, and a negro
girl named Angeline, with her babe at the price
of two dollars per month, and a negro girl
named Victorine at two dollars per month.

Now, if the said A. Q. P. Saerche, shall permit
the said negroes to attend their counsel, or those
of the said Mary Charlotte , and the said Court,
and not remove then, or permit them to be
removed out of the jurdicition of said Court,
and not subject them to severity on account
of said suit or application for freedom,
and shall pay to said Sheriff the said monthly
hire, then this obligation to be void, otherwise
to remain in full force.

Allen . Saresché Henry Cobb

Bond of A. J. P.
Garesche to

Sheriff.

Bond of Geroge
B. Taylor to

Sheriff.

Know all men by these presents, that we George
R. Taylor, as principal and
as security, are held and firmly bound unto the
State of Missouri , in the full and just sum of
Fifteen Hundred Dollars; for the payment
of which, we bind ourselves, our executors, adminstrators,
and assigns.

Given under our hands and seals, this seventh
day of December eighteen hundred and fifty three

The condition of the above obligation is such
that, whereas John M . Wimer, Sheriff of the County
of St Louis , state aforesaid, by virtue of an order
made by the St Louis Circuit Court , on the

Sixth day of December 1853, in a certain suit
in which Mary Charlotte is plaintiff, and
Gabriel S . Chouteau is defendant, has this day hired
to the said Geroge R. Taylor, a negro girl named
Euphrasia, aged about eleven years for the sum
of three dollars per month.

Now, if the said Geroge R. Taylor, shall permit the
said negro to attend her counsel or that of said
Charlotte and the said Court, and not remove her
or permit her to be removed out of the jurisdiction
of said Court, and not be subjected to severity
on account of said suit or application for freedom,
and shall pay to said sheriff the said
monthly hire, then this obligation to be
void, otherwise, to remain in full force.

G R Taylor

State of Missouri To the Sheriff of any County,

Whereas the Court is
satisfied on the affidavit of Cobb this day made, that Mary
Charlotte , who is suing for her freedom
has been removed with her children
to the common jail of the County
of St Louis , by the orders of the
defendant Gabriel S. Chouteau
& that she & they are about to be
removed out of the jurisdiction
of the Court by the orders of the
said defendants, & further that
she & they are in danger of being
so removed out of the jurisdiction
of the Court to day on board a
Steamboat bound for the city
of New Orleans in the State of
Louisiana

These are therefore to
Command you forthwith to seize
the said Mary Charlotte wherever
she may be found & to bring her
before the Court on the seventh day
of December 1858 at 9 OClock AM & to summon
the person in whose possession
she is found to appear before the
Circuit Court in the Court House of the
County of St Louis on the said seventh
day of December 1853

In Testimoney Whereof I hereto set my hand
and affix the seal of said Court at Office
in the City of St Louis this 6th December 1853 M. S. Cerre Clk

In Circuit Court

Warrants

Excuted this writ in the County of St Louis on
the 6th day of December 1853. by delivering to Reuben Bartlett (the person in whose possession the negro woman
Mary Charlotte children were found) a copy of the within writ &
by having the negro woman Mary Charlotte , before
the Honr. Judge of the Circuit Court as commanded

Jn. M Wimer
Shfffee $ 2.00

Know all men by these presents that we Jacob P.Thomas,
as principal and James S.
Daugherty, as security, are held and firmly bound unto
the State of Missouri , in the full and just sum of Five
Hundred Dollars, for the payment of which, we bind
ourselves, executors, administrators and assigns, firmly
by these presents

Given under our hands and seals
this 8th day of April 1854.

The condition of the above obligation is such that,
whereas, John M ., Sheriff of the County St. Louis ,
State aforesaid, by virtue of an order made by the St. Louis
Circuit Court , on the Sixth day of December 1853, in a
certain suit, pending in said court, in which Mary
Charlotte , is Plaintiff, and Gabriel S. Chouteau is defendant,
has this day hired to the said Jacob P. Thomas
at the price of seven dollars per
month, a negro man named Antoine , aged
about twenty-five years.

Now, if the said Jacob P. Thomas,
shall permit the said Antoine to attend his counsel, or that of the said Mary Charlotte , and
the said Court, and not remove him, or permit
him to be removed out of the jurisdiction of
said court, and not subject him to severity on
account of said suit or application for freedom,
and shall pay to said Sheriff the said monthly
hire, then this obligation to be void, otherwise
to remain in full force.

Jacob P. ThomasJ.S.J. S. Daugherty

Bond of Jacob P.
Thomas. to

Shff

In The Supreme Court Of Missouri , At Saint Louis .
October Term, 1855Error to Saint Louis Circuit
Court .

Now come again the parties herein
by their respective attorneys, and the Court here being now sufficiently
advised of and concerning the premises
do consider and adjudge, that the judgment aforesaid, in form aforesaid, by said
Circuit Court rendered, be reversed annulled
and for nought held and esteemed, and that said
Plaintiff in Error be restored to all things
which she has lost by reason of said Judgment;
And it is further considered by the Court, that this cause be remanded
to said Circuit Court for further proceedings according
to the opinion of this Court herein delivered and
that said Plaintiff in Error recover against said
Defendants in Error Their costs and charges herein expended
and have thereof execution.

The State of Missouri ,ss.

I, William S. Glanville, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri , at St .
Louis , certify the foreging to be a perfect transcript of the Judgment
of said Court, in the above entitled cause, decided by said Court, at the term first above stated,
in Error to said Circuit Court .

Witness my hand, and the Seal of said Supreme Court , at
Office, in St. Louis , this fourteenth day of
February 1856. Wm S Glanville, William S. Glanville, Clerk.

Judg.Sup. Court.
R.R.

Filed March 3rd 1856, Wm J . Hammond Clk

The State of Missouri ,To the Sheriff of St. Louis County, Greeting

You are hereby commanded to summon Eighteen good and
lawful men to appear before the St. Louis Circuit Court
on Thursday next the 22d instant at 9 o' clock a.m.
out of whom to empannel
a jury in the case of Mary Charlotte vs
Gabriel S. Chouteau , and have you then there this writ
with the names of those on whom you have served the same
therein endersed.

Witness William J. Hammand Clerk
of said Court with the seal thereof hereto
affixed at office in the City of St. Louis
this 16 day of May 1856.

Wm J. Hammond Clk

Executed this venire by summoning as Special Jurors as above
the following named persons, to wit. William Joseph
Schultze, Oliver Delore, Saml Forder, Delphy Carlin, Francis
Menard , August Mary, Joseph Mallett, Milton Smith,
E. G. Ahrew, Peter D. Barada, Saml Knight, J. H. Squires
James L Crane, Y. W. Levant, Frederick Jenkins, Hiram Paddleford John R Colt.
in St Louis County May 21st 1836

Yurner Maddox Shff By J. R.Torres Depty fee $ 200

Special venire of 18
for 22d inst.

Executed May 21/56
Turner Maddox Shff
By J. R.Torres fee $ 2.00

In St. Louis Circuit Court , March Term 1856 Tuesday May 27 1856.

On application
of the Plaintiff's
attorney, it is ordered by the Court that the said
plaintiff and her children be brought into Court.

Attest
Wm J.Hammond Clk

Executed by bringing into Court the within named
Charlotte & her two children, May 27/56

Turner Maddox Shff By J.B. Hydon Depty Fee $ 3.00

In St Louis Circuit Court . March Term 1856 Tuesday May 27. 1856.

It is ordered by the Court
that the Sheriff of St. Louis
County summon twelve good and lawful men
to appear before this Court to-morrow morning
at nine O'clock to serve as Jurors in the above
entitled cause, and have you the names of
those you summon herein endorsed.

Witness William J. Hammond
Clerk of said Court with the seal
thereof hereto affixed at office in
the City of St. Louis this 27 day
of May 1856. Wm J.Hammand clk

Special Venire of 12
for 28th inst

Executed this venire by summoning twelve
good and lawful men to wit Thomas S. Marne
Joseph Bully John Goodin N. C. Meyer Juda A Hart
Samuel Kasser Wm Gleason J A Mauzy M McBird
Wm W Miller Samuel W Chapin & John Bosten in
St Louis County May 28th 1856

Turner Maddox fee $ 2.00

The State of Missouri ,To the Sheriff of St. Louis County --- Greeting:

We command you to attach John Goodin, N.C. Meyer, J.A. Mauzy,
Wm W. Miller, Saml W Chapin, John Bosten
by his bodytheir bodies and him safely keep, so that you have histheir bodies before the Judge of the St. Louis
Circuit Court , now in session at the City of St. Louis , within and for the County of St. Louis on the
forthwith18 then and there to answer a
contempt for failing to attend as a Juror, after having been duly summoned as such.

Witness, William J. Hammond , Clerk of our said Court,
at the City of St. Louis , this 28 day of
May in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and fifty six Clerk C .C.

Neither of within parties found. May 28 56

Turner Maddox Shff ByJ. B. Hydon Depty Fee non est $ 3-

29

Attach

Jn GoodinN. C. MeyerJ. A.MauzyWm W MillerSaml W ChaplinJohn Bosten

10. So far as there is any thing in the way of an opinion
expressed by the witnesses whose depositions have
been read or any of them, which conflict will
the instructions as to the effect to be given to the
several documents read in evidence; the jury
must disregard the opinions of the witnesses
and conform to the instruction of the Court
given on those subjects.

Given at close of argument
of Plff's counsel to the Jury.
May 29. '56

Instructions proposed by plfs Counsel

Refused May 29. '56.

1st If the jury believe from the evidence
that Rose , the mother of plaintiff, was brought
into the North West Territory, after the year
1788, & held therein, at
as a slave thereafter, & when the ordinance
of 13th July 1787 “For the government of
the Territory of the United States north
west
of the river Ohio " was in
force, they will find for the plaintiff.

2d If the Jury believe from the evidence
that after the ordinance, of 13th July
1787, “For the government of the Territory of the
United States north-west of the river Ohio ",
was in force, Rose the mother of plaintiff
was taken & held in Prairie du Chien
in said territory as a slave, they will
find for the plaintiff.

Refused, May 29 '56.

3d If the Jury believe from the evidence
that Rose the of plaintiff was born in Montreal , Canada
in or about the year 1768, & was free at
her birth they will find for the plaintiff.

Refused May 29, 1856.

4th The jury are instructed that the testimony
under oath of Judges of high Courts in a
foreign Country is good evidence of the Construction
of the laws & of the customs and
usages of said foreign Country.

Refused, May 29, 1856.

Instructions for
plaintiff, refused
Refused May 29/1856

The Defendant Comes &
moves the Court here to set
aside the verdict in this
Cause & grant him a new trial for the following
reasons.

1. Because the verdict is against
law

2 Because the verdict is against evidence

3 Because the court admitted illegal testimony on the part of the plaintiff

4 Because the court gave improper
instructions to the jury at the instance
of the plaintiff

5 Because the finding is against
the instructions of the court.

Thos J Gautt
p. .

Motion & reasons
for a new trial
Gautt

Filed May 30, 1856 Wm. J . Hammond Clk

Be it remembered that at the
trial of this cause the plaintiff
produced as a witness Joseph
C. Barlow who testified that the plaintiff
was held as a slave by Madame Chouteau in her
lifetime, and that Gabriel S. Chouteau was her
executor had possession of plaintiff at the
commencement of this suit, holding her as his
slave

The plaintiff's Counsel then read the depositions

of Michel Marli in the words & figures following
(here set it out, omitting the captions &
certificates)

Also bill of sale from Didees to Chouteau
in the words & figures following (here insert it) (with
out
certificates)

Also bill of sale from Todd to Dideen (here
insert it without certificates)

Also the following testimony from notes of testimony
taken at a former trial to wit, the evidence
of P. L. Cerre, Peter Pagant, Rowan Dufresne
Michel Fortin and Jacques Borneau (here set
those out).

Also the testimony of James Reed in the words & figures following (here set it out omitting captions
& certificates)

When question Tenth put by plaintiff to the aforesaid
witness was read the defendant objected thereto, and
to the reading of the answer thereto, which objection
the Court allowed & permitted to be read To the opinion of the Court disallowing
said objection & permitting said answer to be
read the defendant at the time excepted

The plaintiff then read in evidence the deposition of Sam-

uel Gale in the words & figures following (here
set it out, omitting certificates, captions &c

When the seventh interrogatory on the part of the
plaintiff to said Gale was read the defendant objected thereto
and to the reading of the answer thereto. But the
Court overruled the objection & allowed the answer
to be read, and defendant excepted at the time

The defendant also objected to the reading
of the 8th interrogatory on the part of the plaintiff
to said Gale and the answer thereto. The Court overruled the objection
& allowed said question and answer to be
read. To the allowance by the Court of the reading of which question and
answer to the jury the defendant at the time
excepted.

AndThe plaintiff has read the Proclamation
of the King of Great Britain dated 1763
which it is agreed may be read in the Supreme
Court from the presented copy. without being here
incorporated.

And this was all the evidence on the
part of the plaintiff

The defendant read in evidence the
articles of capitulation of 1760. the treaty
of of 1763. the act of 1774. and the
act of 1793. all of which may be read from
the printed copy contained in the volume
here prodeced without being copied in
this bill

Also the act of 1790. in the words & figures
following (here insert)

Also the depositions of the following persons
Madame Tisson, Col. Menard, Antoine Smith
Francis Tison . P.L. Cerre, Mad. Chaloillet Mad
Bouchette, Charles William Grant Baron &c

Jannis Douoplayed La Croin, Deusaid Patuck OKeefe
william Elliot

in the word & form following
(which the clerk will here insert without the cap
tion or certifacates).

and this was all the testimony in the cause
the Court gave the following nine instructionsat
the to which no exception was ta-
ken by defendant (here invert them).

The cause having been asigned the count at the
instance of defendants counsel gave the fol
lowing instruction (here insert it) no 1.0

The plaintiff then asked for the following
induction (here insert it) No 11 which the Defendant objected
to as calculated to conflict with instructions
already given and to mislead the jury. But the
court overruled the objections permitted th
gave said last named instruction. to the giving of
which the defendant excepted.

The jury found fordefendant the
plaintiff. Immediately, thereafter the of
the verdict the defendant filed the following
motion for a new trail (here insert it) which the court
overruled and defendant excepted thereto and present
earlier bill of exceptions & prayed that the cause be
& made part of the record which is done.

A. Hamilton .

Bill of Exceptions

Filed May 31. 1856. Wm. J. Hammond Clk

In the St Louis Circuit Court

Personally on this thirty
first day of May 1856
in open court comes Gabriel S Chouteau the defend
ant who prays an appeal from the payment
rendered within cause maketh oath & Saith
that said appeal is not taken for vexation or
delay but because affiant believes himself
aggrieved by the judgment of the Court in their cause

Gabriel S. Chouteau Sworn to & subscribed before one
This 31 May 1856 Wm. J Hammond Clk

Affidavit

Filed May 31 . 1856 Wm . J . Hammond Clk

In The Supreme Court Of Missouri , At Saint Louis .
October Term, 1857.Appeal from St. Louis
Circuit Court .

Now come again the parties herein
by their respective attorneys, and the Court here being now sufficiently
advised of and concerning the premises
do consider and adjudge, that the judgment aforesaid, in form aforesaid, by said
Circuit Court rendered, be reversed, overrulled
and for naught held and esteemed and that said
appellant be restored to all strings which he has Cost
by reason of said judgment;
And it is further considered by the Court, that this cause be remanded
to said Circuit Court for further proceedings according
to the Opinions of this Court herein delivered and
that said appellant have and recover
said respondent his and charges herein
expended and have thereof execution.

The State Of Missouri ,ss.

I, William S. Glanville, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri , at St .
Louis , certify the foregoing to be a perfect transcript of the judgment
of said Court, in the above entitled cause, decided by said Court, at the term first above stated,
an appeal from said Circuit Court .

Witness my hand, and the Seal of said Supreme Court , at
Office, in St. Louis , thisfirst day of
January 1858Wm. S. GlanvilleWilliam S. Glanville Clerk.

Judgment Sup Court
R R.

Filed January 22
1858. Stephen RiceClk

Large Document
Can Be Found In
Oversize Storage

Box Cvoz

Folder 6

In the St Louis Circuit Court
St Louis County_

You are hereby notified, that depositions of witnesses, to be read in evidence in the above entitled
cause, on the part of the plaintiff will be taken at the office of the
of the Superior Court of Lower Canada in the Court
, in the City of Montreal , Province of Canada_
in the county of and State ofon
theSixteenth day of October 1858, between the hours of eight
o'clock in the forenoon and six o'clock in the afternoon; and that the taking of said depositions, if not
completed on that day, will be continued from day to day, at the same place, and between the same
hours, till completed.

Her...
Aty of pltff.

St Louis 2nd October 1858.
Serves of
the within accepted I objection is waves
that the number of days required Statute
because of distance to Montreal , is not
given

Thos J.Gantt.p.d

County Of St. Louis ,Ss. State of Missouri .To any Judge, Justice of the Peace,notary Public or other Judicial Officer of the State of Province of Canada or any
Commission of Deeds for the State of Missouri in the justice of said Province Greeting:

Know ye, that we, in confidence of your prudence and fidelity, do, by these presents,
authorise you to cause to come before you, to be examined as witnesses in a cause pending in our
Circuit Court for the County of St Louis , in the State of Missouri , wherein
Charlotte of color is
plaintiff, and
Gabriel S. Chouteau is
defendant, all
and every such person, and at such time and place, as shall be named to you for that pur-
pose by the said plaintiff her
Attorney or Agent. And we command you to examine all and every such person upon his oath
or solemn affirmation first made or taken before you, to testify the whole truth touching his know-
ledge of anything relating to the said matter in controversy between the said parties; and that
you do take such his examination, and reduce the same into writing. When you shall have so
taken his examination, you are to cause the witness to sign the same, and to that and each exami
nation, at the foot thereof, you are to append your certificate, setting forth the facts that the examination
was subscribed and sworn to or affirmed by the witness, and the day, as well as between
what hours of the day, on which it was done, as also the place of residence of the witness, if
known to you. Should any paper or exhibit be produced or proven or be referred to by the witness
you are to describe the same in his examination, or cause it to be so marked by him, as to estab-
lish its identity, and attach the same to his examination. The examination thus taken you will
cause to be accompanied by a certificate of your official character, attested by the seal of State;
or, should it be more convenient, such authentication and proof of your official character may be
made by the certificate and seal of the clerk of any court of record of any county of the State,
District or Territory in which you reside, stating also, in addition to the facts of his being clerk,
and that the court is one of record, that, at the time when the depositions were taken, you were
an acting judge, (or other such officer to whom this commission is addressed,) and duly commis-
sioned as such. And you will return the same and all exhibits produced to you, annexed hereto,
carefully closed upon and under your seal, directed to the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for the
County of St. Louis , Missouri , with the names of the said parties litigant endorsed thereon, with
all convenient speed.

Witness, William J. Hammond S.Rice, Clerk of said Circuit Court , at the
city of St. Louis , this second day of October
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty eightS.Rice Clerk C.C.

I, Charles A . Terroux , of the City of Montreal in the Province of Canada , Esquire,
Notary Public duly commissioned and sworn in and for Lower Canada a Justice of the
Peace in and for the City and District of Montreal in the said Province and a Commission
for recieving affidavits to be used in the Superior and Circuit Courts in Lower Canada
do hereby certify, that in pursuance of the within dedimus or commission and notice,
and in presence of Frederick Griffin , of the said City of Montreal , Esquire, one of the Majority's
Counsel in the law, as attorney and agent of the within named Plaintiff and of John J .C
Abbott , of the same place, Esquire, advocate, as Attorney and Agent of the within named
Defendant, came before me, at the Court house in the said City of Montreal , the
Honorable William Badgley , of the said City, one of the Judges of the Superior Court for
Lower Canada , who was sworn and examined, and his examination being reduced to
writing, the same was by him subscribed in my presence and his deposition, with the
several papers then to attached, is now herwith returned. Given under my hand
at the said City of Montreal this fifth day of February in the year of Our Lord one
thousand eight hundred and forty nine.

Charles A Terroux
sworn:

Province of Canada
Lower Canada ,
to wit.

It is hereby certified, that Charles A . Terroux ,
who has signed the above return, on the sixteenth day of
October now last past was, and from that day to this hath continued to
be and still is, a Notary Public duly commissioned and sworn in and for
Lower Canada , and a Justice of the Peace in and for the City and District of
Montreal in the said Province, and also a Commissioner for recieving affidavits
to be used in the Superior and Circuit Courts in Lower Canada , and acting as surely
and that full faith and credit are due to his acts as such. In testimony
whereof, We Samuel Wentworth Monk , William Craigin Holmes Coffin and
Louis Joseph , joint of Her Majesty's said
Superior Court for Lower Canada have hereunto set our official signature
and the seal of the said Court at the said City of Montreal this fifth
day of February in the Year of Our Lord one
thousand eight hundred and fifty_nine
and of Her Majesty's reign the twenty-second.

Monk

A.
County of St Louis Ss.
State of Missouri

under the annexed Dedimus or Commission, issued
out of the Circuit Court for the County of St Louis , in the
State of Missouri , bearing date the second day of October
one thousand Eight hundred and fifty Eight, and addressed to
“any Judge, Justice of the Peace, Notary Public, or other Judicial
"Officer of the Province of Canada , or any Commissioner of deeds
"for the state of Missouri in the said Province,"I. Charles
A . Terroux , of the City of Montreal in the Province of Canada ,
Esquire, a Notary Public duly commissioned and sworn in
and for that part of the said Province which formerly con-
sitituted Lower Canada , one of Her Majesty's Justices of
the Peace in and for the City and district of Montreal , in
the said Province, and a Commissioner for receiving
affidavits to be used in the Superior and Circuit Courts
for Lower Cananda, acting as Commissioner for the exe-
cution of the said annexed Dedimus or Commission,
and for the purpose of executing the same, did attend in the
office of the Prothonotary of the Superior Court for Lower
Canada , in the said City and district of Montreal , at Eleven
of the Clock in the forenoon of this sixteenth day of October
in the year aforesaid, being the place and time specified in
the Notice annexed to the said Dedimus or Commission,
and there and then being personally appeared before me,
Frederick Griffin , of the said city of Montreal , Esquire,
one of Her Majesty's Counsel in the law, as the Attorney
and agent of the above named Plaintiff, and John J .C.
Abbott , of the same place, Esquire, advocate, as the attorney
and and Agent of the above named Defendant, and the said Dedimus
or Commission and Notice thereunto annexed having been read, it
was represented to me by the plaintiffs said Attorney and Agent, and
concurred in by the Defendants said Attorney and Agent, that the
chief object of the said Dedimus or Commission is to obtain evi-
dence of the laws and customs of this country, in relation to the
slavery of Negros and other persons before and after this Country
passed from the dominion of the French Crown to that of the Bri-
-tish;
that, consequently the witnesses must be persons well
versed in those laws and customs; and that it would not be reason-
-able to require such persons to undergo an examination without
having previously had communication of the Chief points &
upon which they are to be examined, and to be required to give their
legal opinion; the said attorneys and agents have therefore requested
me, the acting Commissioner as aforesaid, to adjourn, and I
accordingly do hereby adjourn this meeting to such future
day as shall hereafter be, by the Plaintiff's said Attorney and
agent, and to me:_ And the said Attorneys and Agents do
further agree, that interrogatories to be prepared by the plaintiffs
said Attorney and Agent, after having been submitted to the
Defendants said Attorney and Agent, shall be communicated to
the Witness, in order that they may prepare themselves for their
examination; reserving to the Defendants said Attorney and
agent, the right of putting to said Witness such Cross interro-
-gatories as he may deem advisable.

Witness my Hand, and the respective Hands of
the said Attorneys and Agents of the parties, at the said
City of Montreal , this Sixteenth day of October, one
thousand Eight hundred and fifty - Eight.
JW Abbott Atty for Deft
Charles A Terroux

1.

And afterwards pursuant to the adjournment and Notice as above
stated, on this fifth day February one thousand Eight hundred and
fifty nine, before me, the said Charles A. Terroux, Commissioner as
aforesaid, in the Office in the city of Montreal , of the prothonotary of the superior
Court for Lower Canada , personally appeared the before_ named Attorneys
and Agents of the said parties, together with the Honorable William
Badgley , one of the Judges of Her Majesty's Superior Courts for
Lower Canada , to be examined as a witness on the part of
the Plaintiff: and thereupon the Witness was by me duly sworn,
and his examination was proceeded with, as follows.___

First: What is your name, age and profession, where do
you reside, and how long have you resided in Canada ?

Answer:_William Badgley aged fifty seven years,
a lawyer by profession, now a Judge of the superior
Court for Lower Canada ,__at present, and since my
birth, with occasional intervals, a resident of the City of Montreal .

Second: What judicial or other public situations, or Offices,
have you held in Canada ,_ during what periods did
you hold the same respectively,_ and were you ever a
member of Parliament of the present Province of Canada ,
or of the Parliament of either of the Sections thereof for
merly known, respectively, as Lower Canada , and
upper Canada ?

Answer:_ From 1840 to 1847, in the judicial Office
of Commissioner of Bankrupts at Montreal , and
also Circuit Judge during the three latter years of that
period; from 1847 to 1855, a member of the Parliament
of Canada , and in that interval, from 1847 to 1848,
Attorney General for Lower Canada ;_ since 1855, a
Judge of the Superior Court for Lower Canada .
Third

2.

Third: Are you well acquainted with the laws which were in
force in Canada , or La Nouvelle France , while it was a
Colony of France?

Answer:_ Professional and Official pursuits and duties
required my becoming acquainted with the laws of French
Colonial Canada .

Fourth: Was the slavery of Negroes, or other persons, recognized or
allowed, either by the public law of France or by any other
law of local application in Canada or La Nouvelle
France , while it was under the dominion of the French
Government?

Answer:_ Slavery was not tolerated in France , either
by the public or the municipal law;_ on the contrary it
was repugnant to all the known, recognized maxims, usages and jurisprudence, which consituted the State,
and characterized a Kingdom in which uniformity of
fundamental law prevailed. Slavery ans Serfdom, of
every description, were finally, and absolutely, abolished
in France , by the Edict of Louis the Tenth, written, in
1315; and the last slave sale in that country was that of a
Jew, in 1296, for three hundred livres. (Guyot's Repertoire
de Jurisprudence, vs Esclavage). The Franch legists
unite in considering the question of freedom as an elemen.
tary principle of French jurisprudence. "Nous ne connois-

=sons point d'esclaves en France ; tous les hommes y sout libres.”
"En France , par un long usage qui a force
de loi,les esclaves deviennent libres dès qu'ils ont le bon-
heurd'y entrer” “On ne convoit point d'esclave en
France , et quiconque a misle pied dans ce Royaume est
gratifié de la liberté. “(15, Causes Célebres, p.30.) “Ainsi
la liberté a régné dans ce Royaume avec tout son
éclat, et de telle maniére que dés qu'un esclave y a mis
le pied, il y acquiert la liberté: tous les auteurs attestent
que

que c'est une maxime du droit francais. “(Ibid. p.11)”
“De nos maximes, de nos usages, de notre jurisprudence
il puis, necessairement, qu'il peut y avoir d'esclave
dansce Royaume " (Ib:)

These citations from the
writings and collections of French jurisprudence by
Denizarte, Guyote and others, to which many more
of a similar character might be added, express the unanimous
opinion of French jurists, and the declaration
of French jurisprudence, upon the subject of freedom in
France . Although slavery was thus denounced, throughout
the Kingdom, by its fundamental laws, it was found
expedient and necessary to encourage and recognize la traite
des negres in particular portions of its territorial
dominions abroad, from the special circumstances of the
climate and productions of those localities; and hence, by
exceptional legislation for the French West - indian colonies,
by the royal Edict of March 1685, commonly known as the
Code Noir, which bears the following title: Le Code Noir,
ou l' Edit du Roi pervant a reglement pour le gouvernement
et l'administration de la justice el de police des
Isles Francaises de l'amerique, et pour la discipline et
le commence des Negres et esclaves dans le dis Pays; and
its objects are stated in the preamble to be “ y maintenir
la descipline de de l'Eglise Catholique &c et y regler
ce qui concerne l'etat es la qualite de nos esclaves dans
nos dites isles" and subsequently in Louisiana , in
the successive Royal grants to Crozat in 1712, and
the Compagnie d'occident in 1717, and by the Royal
Edict of 1724, which also was a Code Noir, specially
enacted for Louisiana By this special
exceptional legislation
W
Charles A Terroux
Com:. the title to slaves, and the
legality of slavery itself were recognized in those
particular places in the French dominions. These
Edicts were enactments of positive law, specially
promulgated for those particular colonies alone, and
became part of their municipal law.

promulgated for those particular colonies alone, and necessarily
became part of their municipal law
Denizart after stating the general principle of freedom,
proceeds: “Le bien de l'etat a exige d'autres maximes
dans les colonies francaises de l'amerique meridionale,
et de l'afrique. Nos rois out permis d'acheter et de posseder
des esclaves negres dansces pays.” The author then
refers to the edict of 1685, as having been registered in the
island of St. Domingo. and proceeds “Cet edit pert des
reglement pour la police des isles de l'amerique francoise
Il y un autre edit di mois de Mars1724. qui pert
de reglement pour l'administration de la justice, police,
discipline, et le commerce des esclaves negres dans les
colonies de la Louisiana ; on le nomme aussi le Code
Noir, et ses dispositions ne different qu'en bien peu de
choses decelles de l'Edit du mois de Mars 1685, pour les isles.”
(3 de jur: v Negres ). “En effet depuis que les
isles de l'amerique font partie de la domination de notre
souverain, la necessite de soutenir, d'entretenir les
habitations, a introduit la traite des Negres; leur vente,
leur achapt, sout par les loix publiques, que je
rapporte suivant l'Edit des 685.” “pien France on ne
connoit point d'esclaves, si la suele arrivee dans ce Royaume
procure la liberte, ce privilege cesse a l'egard des
esclaves negres francois. qu'elle en est la raison! C'est
qu'en France la france, c'est que par une loi de la France , meme
les esclaves negres de nos colonies colonies pout constitutes dans
un esclavagenecessaire, et autorise.” (case of the Negro,
Boucaux, in the Causes celebres de M. Gayot de Pitaval,
vol: XV.)

The same report explains the origin of that particular
colonial slave legislation, and which may also
be found in other law authors. “Il s'est presente plusicurs

plusieurs compagnies pour former un etablissement
dans les isles de l'Amerique, Saint Domingue et auties,
et y faire un commerce considerable. Le Roi, pour
faciliter cet etablissement, concede a ces compagnies
toutes les terres incultes de ces isles, autorise la traite des
negres, qui s'echangent contre des marchandises, et commes
ces negres sout destines au defrichement et a la
culture des terres, ensemble de toutes les denrees qui y
croissent, l'utilite du commence qui ne se fait dans les
colonies que har le moyen de toutes ces operations, a determine
le souverain a donner son Edit en 1685, har lequel
en reglant l'administration de la police sur ces
negres il regle en meme leur etat et leur condition;
il deroge a cette maxime du droit francais; il veut
que ces negres restent esclaves, a fin de pouvoir mieux
les contenir dans l'exercise de leurs travaux qui contribuent
a rendre le commerce florissant dans le royaume
et a y entretenir l'abondance." Again, "L'Edit de
1685. a recllement constitue l'esclavage dans les
colonies les negres que l'on y amene de la cote de Guinse
sont esclaves &c Le Souverain l'a auesi statue par une
loi que est demeuree en rigueur depuis ce tems-la et de
son execution dependent la culture des terres de ce
pays, la piosperite de Notre commerce, la conservation
de cette partie des Etat de Notre Monarque: mais, en
meme tems que c'est une loi necessaire pour nos colonies,
tout pou effet y reside sans l'etendue au dela de ces nou
velles acuisitions:... ainsi nul avaritage a tirer
de cet edit hors de nos colonies.” (Ibid)

The intercourse between the mother country and
those slave colonies and the application and enforcement
of the principle of French freedom in favor of
negro slave servants bought from the West-indian
colonies into France by their masters, occasioned the
the enactment of further special, exceptional, but at the
same time positive, laws, respecting that particular class,
namely, the royal edict of October 1716, and its modification
by its interpretative Royal declaration of fifteenth
December 1738, which preserved the slave status of the colonial
negro whilst in France , and protected the right of the
master; but only upon the observance of positive conditions,
a failure of any one of which under the Edict of 1716, gave
the slave his liberty, and under that of 1738 not only subjected
him to royal confiscation, pour etre renvoye aux
colonies but imposed upon the master a penalty of
one thousand livies for each such slave.

Exceptional as these royal edicts were to the public
law of freedom acknowledged in France , even they were
not generally admitted by the provincial parliaments of
France , and were registered only in those of Dijon,
Rennes and Grenoble They were neither registered
by, nor offered for registration to, the parliament of
Paris ; and Denizart, loco citato, remarks,” parce qu'on
lesa consideres comme contraire au droit commun du
voyaume, suivant le quel tout homme est libre des
qu'il habite dans les pays soumis a nos rois

“Depuis l'Edit de 1315, la France est non seulment
rentree dans pon premiesr droit de franchise, elle a encore
conservee celiu de ne souffrir dans ses Etats aucuns
esclaves.” (The Procureur du Roi, in Boucaux's case.)

The case of Francisco, the Pondicherry negro, purchased
there in early life by his master, and brought
as his servant to France , where he obtained his liberty
in 1759, by the concurrent decisions of the two higest
tribunals of the Country (Denizant, loco citato), and
the case of Boncaux, the St. Domingo negro - slave,
also brought to France as his servant by his master,

and who likewise obtained his freedom there by similar
decisions, are celebrated in the annals of French litigation;
the latter case, as already stated, is reported at
length in M. Gayot de Pitaval's Causes Celebres,
volume XV. These decisions were in affirmance of
the principle of freedom in the Kingdom of France , and
of the exceptional character of those edictal enactements,
as applicable only to a particular class of persons,
and to particular colonial localities, namely negro
slaves belonging originally to the African and West-Indian
colonies alone.

From the foregoing, to which much additional authority
might be added, it is evident, - 1st that the public
law of the parent state did not recognize slavery in
Frances or its territorial dominious, but declared it
illegal; and it was, therefore, antagonistic to the local
law of her slave colonies in that respect;- 2ndly that the
same fundamental rights of the French people extended
through all the dominions of France , tous les e'tats
du Royaume , where her laws prevailed, without special
exceptions of particular places; and 3rdly that the
exceptional status of slavery was confined to those
slave colonies, colonies francoises de l'amerique meridionale
et de l'afrique, and to the Colony of Louisiana ,
above mentioned; and even for these required
no less authority for its establishment and recognition
than the positive, express legislative declaration of the Royal
Will .

Proceeding from France to Canada the Colonial
archives shew the establishment by letters patent in
E.O.N. I. 37.
1663, of a sovereign or Superiour Council for the
colony, conseil souverain ou Superieur de Quebec ,
to whom were intrusted full administrative and
judicial powers in the last resort, pour y juger souverainement
et en dernier ressort, subject only to the King's pleasure,
and according to the “Loix et ordonnances de Notre
Royaume, et y proceder autant qu'il sepourra en la forme
et maniere qui se pratique et se garde dans le ressort de
Notre Cour de Parlement de Paris ." In the year 1674,
Canada became a Crown Colony, open to all the
King's subjects, the proprietary compagnie des Indes,
Occidentalis E.O.I.40.
Charles A Terroux
to whom the King had granted the Country in 1664,
having been broken up, and having abandoned their
charter in the former year. The effect resulting from
the establishment of the Superior Council, and the intoduction
of the laws and ordinances of the Kingdom,
and of the laws and usages of the Prevote de Paris was
to make these the laws of the Colony, and at the same
time to bring with them, for the benefit of the colonists,
those fundamental laws of France , which regulated
the public rights of persons resident in, or being within
the precincts of, the Prevote de Paris in Canada . From
that time all persons coming in or brought into the Province,
becoming subject to the penalty of those laws, were
entitled to demand and to receive, the protection
affored by them, in the same manner as in a home
province of old France , and especially WBin that of WB the Prevote de Paris

From the establishment of the Superior Council in
1663, no subsequently enacted or promulgated
legislation could have legal effect, or become operative,
in Canada , without its special adoption and registration
by the Superior Council, nor unless it was otherwise
found to be applicable to the state of the Colony.
The only public royal acts of France which received
colonical registration since 1663, and in which any
reference is had to slaves, esclaves, were the following,

5. 9.

which I have selected in their Order of date, namely;
1st the neutrality treaty of November 1686, between
E.O.I.251.
England and France , with particular reference to
their respective American Colonies, by the tenth
article of which the Indian allies of either state,
and their slaves, were not to be removed or disturbed:
2nd the Royal grant of Louisiana to Crozat in 1712;
Ib. 327.
which, by the 14th clause, authorized the grantee alone to
trade to Guinea for negros for the local purposes of the
Colony and the cultivation of his grant, and for their sale,
for local purposes only, by him to the Colonists alone, who
at the time numbered but twenty - eight families, composed,
according to Charleroix of “des marchanda, des cabaretiens,,
et des ouviers, qui ne se fiscoient en aucun endroit.”
3rd the Royal grant of 1717, after Crozat's death, of
Ib. 377.
Louisiana to the compagnie d'Occident, with similar
privileges of trading for negros: 4th the Royal declaration
of 1721, for terminating the legal conflicts arising from
Ib. 439.
the double appointments of tutors to minors in France ,
and also in the Colony; which, being an enactment of
general colonial requirement, applied as well to the free
as in the slave colonies. The general reason for this exactment
is stated to be, the conflicts in the tutorial appointments;
but in addition to that general reason, the King
took advantage of it to regulate a local evil which was
growing in the slave colonies, namely the enfranchisement
of negros by their owners whilst the latter were
minors. The preamble mentions the evil with reference
to the negroes themselves, who, it is stated, “comme
nous avons ete informe employes a la culture des terres,
C. A. T.
etant WB garde WB dans colonies comme des effects mobliliers
suivant les lois qui y pont etablies les mineurs abrisent
souvent du droit que l'emancipation leur donne de disposer
WB
Charles A Terroux
Com
de leivs negres, et en ruinant par la les habitations
qui leur sont propres, font encore un prejudice considerable
a nos colonies, dont la principale ritilite
depend du travail des negres qui font valoir les terres, &c

The emancipation of the minor, referred to above, was
a power granted to him judicially, to trade, and to
manage his estate, as if he was of the full age of
French majority- twenty - five years. The fourth
article of this public act, therefore, specially prohibts
even the emancipated minor, until his twenty fifth
year, from disposing of his negros“ qui servent a exploiter
C.A.T
leurs habitations.” the terms WB of this provision WB shewing this to be a
special provision applicable only to the French slave
islands:- 5th the Edict of October 1727; whereby the
foreign trade of the colonies is regulated, and in which
special provisions are necessarily enacted with regard
to negros landing or being on board of vessels touching
at, or trading with the colonies:- and lastly the arret of
July 1745, which, assimilating fugitive slaves from
foreign or enemies' colonies to wrecks on the coasts of the
Kingdom, appropriated them, or their proceeds, to the Royal
benefit. No other French public act, referring to slavery,
has been registered in the Colony: these will be found in
the first volume of the Edits, Ordonnances Royaux
Declarations et arrets du Counseil d'Etat du Roi
concernant le Canada , published, by authority, in
900 form, in 1854, and none of them introduced slavery
into, or recognized it in, French Canada .

Neither the edict of, 1685,or code noir of the French, West
Indian islands, nor the other exceptional enactments
above referred to, respecting negro slaves in France , nor
even the edit of 1724, the Louisiana Code Noir, were
registered, or offered for registration, in the superior Coun
-cil of Quebec ; and they were, therefore, inoperative in
Canada . The Royal grants of 1712 and 1717,
of

6.

of Louisiana , necessarily were so registered, because
Louisiana was thereby separated from Canada , of which un
-til 1712, it formed a portion, “ Hors le cas prévu par la loi
hors le pays mentiouné, qui est le seul object de la loi cel
esclavage cesse, en la liberté reprend tous ses drotis."

The consequence of the want of this provincial parliamen
-tary or Colonial registration is well explained in the follow
-ing remarks of the King's advocate procureur du Roi addres
-sed
to the judicial assessor of the Court before which the
trail of the St Domingo negro slave, Boucaux, was proceed-
ing,
and are in in full conformity with French law in that
respect. After remarking upon the specially exception
-al
character of the edicts of 1685 and 1716, he proceeds:"
ces deux édicts n'out nil l'un nil'autre été envoyé au Greffe
parlementdece siége: peut être que ce défaut deformalité attirera
votre attention, elque vous vous reglerez sur ce principe,
attention,
que la loi ne peut avoir d' execution ni d'effet que par sa
publicité; en ce cas, il n'en faudroit point davantage
pour reudre inutiles lous les raisiunerneus, et pour détruire
toutes les inductious que la partie de W. Dribard (c'esta-dire
la partie du Maitre) tire de ces Edits: par la meine raisoux
il n'en faudroit point davantage pour remethe celle de
W. Malles (vizt. celle dir nigne) dans le miane état que
les esclaves étrangers, à qui l'ou ne couteste point le
privilêge delaliberté daus toute l'étendue du Royaume ,",”
(Causes Celèbres IV. 54). It must hence be mani-
-fest, that no public law of France introduced, or establish
-ed, or reconized slavery in Canada , as a Colonial
status. To use a common form of expression, the Common
law of France neither established nor protected slavery
in Canada :_ that conclusion is established by the fact, that
upon the Grant of Louisiana to Crozat in 1712, and its formation
into a seprate colony, dissevered by the Royal letter patent
from the province of Canada , of which, till that separation is
had
12.
had formed a part, the King deemed it necessary exceptionally
and specially to provide, on the subject of slavery, in favour of the
grantee, Crozat, by giving him special permission to purchase
slaves in Guinea and sell them in Louisiana ; and afterwards,
in 1717, extended the same privileges to his succesors, the Com-
pagnie d'occident; and finally in 1727, by his Royal Edict of that
year, made a code Noir specially for that colony, whilst no such
legislation was ever contemplated for, or extended to Canada .
I refer particularly to the first Royal grant of Canda of April 1627.
to the Compagnée des Ceuts Associés, the Letters patent establishing
that Company, its articles of association, and the Varoius Royal and
public documents connected with that Company, including that of its
dissolution, the Second Royal grant of Canada , in May 1664, to the Com.
pagnie des Judes occidentale, the constitution and exection of this latter
company, with the special article of the grant in their favour of Ces Isles de
Camérique appellées les antilles, all of which are of record in the first
volume of the before cited Edits, Odounances Royaux Ra, and in which
neither slaves nor slavery are mentioned or can be implied. I have
seen in the possession of a Collector of old colonial records, a note or
extract how representations said to have been made from Canada to
the Home Government, upon the subject of the introduction of negroes
as contained in the offical letters of the Governer de Denouirlle, and
the Mtendant de Champigruy, of the tenth of August, thrityfirst
of October, and sixth of November 1688, to the secretary of state in Paris',
there are no means of verfying their correctness in this country, but
as connected with this subject, and bearing evidence of interest in the
Matter, I cite the extract, which is as follows" Moux de Lagnyécris _
Les geus de travailed les domestiques sout d'une rareti exherne,
eld'une cherté si extraordinaire, qu'il ruinent tous ceux qui font
quel que entreprise. On croit que le meilleut moyen seroit d'avoir
des esclaves néogres. Le Procureur Général du Couseil, qui està
Paris , assure, que si pa Majesté agreé cette proposition, quel qu'un des
Principaux halitants en ferout acheter aux isles à l'arrivéa de Vais=
seaux de Guneé, el il est lui mêine daus cette résolution.

The Secretarys answer in the following year, 1689,
was

7. 13
was simply, that the King made no particular
objection to the project, but suggested at the same time,
'il est bon de leur faire remarquer,, qu'il est à craindre
que ces nègroes qui viennent d'un climat si different
ne perissent en Canada , el le project servil iniutile."
This negro project remained without effect, and was
never put into execution; nor do I find how examination
of the provincial records, that any further representation
was made upon the matter.

A kind of servitude, however, had grown up in
the Colony from other causes. The prisoners taken in
war by their Indian captors, whose lives had been spared,
were, by force of Indian customs, reduced to servitude,
and called slaves, servi, less à serviendo quam ser.
-vando; a servitude, at all events, the result of captivity
in war, by which the Indian Masters secured to them=
selves the material advantage of their prisoners' service.
The Indian tributaries of France soon became induced
to preserve their captures from other, but mere venal, motives.
The service market of Canada , at that period, as shewu
in the representations above extracted, and as we learn
from Charlevoix, was in great need of supply; and
hence the wants of the Colonists raised the cupidity of the
Indians, whose predatory excursions, far and near,
enabled them to supply the former and secure the latter.

The western tribes of Pawnees appear to have been
the great source from which their prisoners proceeded;
so much so indeed, that all the Indian servants
of the Colony became included under that general
appellation ( Paris ). These captives were not
placed or sold in Canada alone, but were disposed of in
the slave holding Carolinas, and in the other British provinces, where no
slavery was established. (see the preamble to Ramoot's Badgley
Ordinance of 1709). Charles A Terroux
Com Ju

C.A.T. 14.
p>In 1671, LWB negros WB slaves were first introduced into Carolina ;
and already, at that time, the number in Virginia amoun=
ted to two thousand (see Holmes's Ameriacan Annals);
so that negroes might be brought as captives into Canada
as well Pawnees ( Paris ), and both became subjects of
sale and barter__whether legal or otherwise was not con=
sidered_,they were subjected to the law of le plus fort; and
the colonists, almost exclusively the residents of the towns,
benefitted by this enforced servitude, and converted them
into domestic servants. Even white persons from the
British colonies, taken by the Indians, were subjected
to the same treatment and consequence; and it suffices
to refer to the inhabitants of Deerfield, who were taken
by the French Indians and sold in Canada , from
which they were only redeemed on payment of ransom_
money. That a strong opinion prevailed against its
validity, and that arbitrary measures were needed to
secure a continuance of such useful service, and to
prevent the seduction therefrom of the purchased Panis
and negroes, will be found in the terms of the preamble
of the Ordinance of the Interdant Randot , of the thi=
teenth of April 1709, entitled. “Ordounance au sujet
des négroes, et des sauvages appellés Paris ." (Edits
et Ordo: &ca, vol II. 271).

It must be observed, that this
Ordinance was the Acte of the Intendant alone, and
stands unsupported by the sanction of either the
foreign Superior Council in the Colony *in whose archives it
was not registered,
W Badgley
Charles A Terroux
Com: or of the
Crown in France . Its premble plainly indicates
the reason of its Origin an promulgation, namely,
the opposition made to the traffic in, and the sale
and purchase of, Indian and negro captives, they
interference with the claims of their purchases for
their compulsory servitude,_ and the application
in Canada in their favour of the principal of
personal

8. 15.
personal freedom, extended by the public law of France
to all prisons coming within its territorial dominions,
where slavery was not exceptionally established par la
loi de l'État, or by the positive enactment of the Royal will hence the purchased
servitude could not
be enforced, and the
purchased Panis and
negroes, almost in every
instance, quitted the
service of their purchases
W Badgley
Charles A Terroux Com:


"Cequi Fait,, qu'ils quitent quasi toujours leus maitres,"

The legal references, above recorded, of the public
law of France , of its operation and effect throughout the
French dominious, and of the fact of the local establish-
ment of slavery in her above-mentioned French slave-
colonies alone, only by means of the exceptional laws
above mentioned, must strongly qualify the concluding
portion of the preamble of the ordinance, in which the
Intendant, objecting to the attempts at interference
with the forced servitude, because the purchased negroes
and panis were told that they could not be retained in
servitude, and were entitled to freedom, "sous prétexte
qu'en France il n'ya point d'esclaves," boldly asserts,"
"cequi ne se trouve pas toujous vai, par rapport
aux Colonies qui en dépendent, puisque dansles
Isles de ce continent tous les Nègroes que les habtous
achetent sout toujous regardès comme tets;_"
the Intendants deduction therefrom is a curious nou
sequitur_"et commes toutes les colonies doivent etre
regardeés sur le meime pied, et que les peuples de la
nation panis sout aussi nécessaries aux habitaus de
ce pays pour la culture destence et autres
qu'on pourroit enterprendre, comme les nègres le sout
aux Isles, et que même ces sortes d'engagemeuts sout
très utiles á cette Colonie, itant necessaire d'en
assuner la propriété a'ceux qui en out achetis et
quien acheterout à l'avenit: Nous, sous le bon
plaisir de la Majesté,Ordounous, que tous les Panis
et Négres qui out été achetés et qui serout dans la
suïte, appartiendrouteu pleine propriété à ceux
qui
16.
qui les achetés, comme étant leurs esclaves." It will be
observed, that the intendant himself refers to the slavery
of the Isles de l'amérique as being local in its nature, and
*furnishers in his
ordanance one,
and among many,
of the various arbitrary
and legally unjustifiable
acts for which his
official career in Canada was long noted among
the Colonists, and of
which traces are met
with in the traditionary
remarks and statements
handed down to this
time.
W Badgley
Charles A Terrone
Com:

The enforcing authority of this Ordinance will not a
little depend upon the delegated power of its framer to make
a public law. The Royal commission invested him with
the legal functions of administering the law in all matters,
civil and criminal, "conformément à nos édits et ordon=
=nances, et àla coûtume de Notre boune ville, prévôté et
vicomté de Paris ," in force in the Colony; and further, "de
faire avec le Conseil Superieur tous les reglemens que
vous estimerez nécessaries pour la police générale du dit
pays, ensemble pour les fovies et marchés, ventes, achats,
et débits de toutes denreés et marchandises;" and, in case
of necessary despatch," nous vous dounous pouvoir
et faculté parces même presentes, de les faire seul, & ca."
Such delegation of Royal power might have justified
the enactment of a Police reglement, preventing inter=
=ference with service, and prohibiting "qui que ce soil de
les débaucher (les panis et Négres) sous peine de Cin-
quante luires d'amends," but could not thereby override
the public law of the state, which was repugnant to slavery,
and annul the maxims, usages and juurisprudence of
the Kingdom, or of the Prévôke de Paris , by which freedom
was maintained in French territory; nor introduce
into Canada by implication, uno afflatu, all the ex=
=ceptional legislation specially made for other particu=
lar Colonies; nor validate the slavery of the purchased
Indian from his having been a mere prisoner of war,
or of a Negro from the colour of his complexion.
Moveover, the intendant himself is constrained to
declare the doubtful character of his Ordinance in
as much as he promulgated it subjéct to the King's
confirmation

confirmation. "Nous, oous le lon plaisir de de sa Majesté,
Ordomous pa", the limitation itself is of a very peculiar
character, and I have been able to discover the like restriction
in only two other Intendants' Ordinances, from among about
one hundred and fifty in number that I have examined
from a very early period down to the time of the conquest of
the Province, and both of those Ordinances had reference to
what might be called Royal interests, _ one, by the same Ran-
dot, in 1710, for the appointment of a Judicial officer as Mon-
-treal; and the other, in 1744, by another Intendant for regulat-
ing
the Current value in the Colony of certain moneys of account
and coins, No other Intendants Ordinances professed to
reach to a matter of state policy, or of public law, and therefore,
no other was restricted in the terms as above. The Confir-
mation of Randots Ordinance of 1709, sous le bon plaisir de
sa Majesté, was never given; and of this, the appended copy
of the Ordinance, with the certificate attached, is proof. The
signature thereto "Geo Pownall" is that of the late_
Sir George Pownall, secretary and Registrar of the Province
whose signature I recognize from having frequently,
seen such appended to public official documents in
his official capacity: he was knighted, I think in 1790,
and died in 1834. Randot was appointed in 1701, relieved
from his Intendancy by his successor's appointment in
March 1710, and returned to France , where he probably
satisfied himself of the propriety of not requiring this
Royal sanction to his Ordinance. A copy of Randot's
commission as Intendant, duly authenticated by the Certificate
and signature of the said Sir George Pownall, secretary and
Registrar of the province, is also hereto appended.

I have been unable to discover a single judicial enforce-
ment of the slave principle recorded during the existence
of the French dominion over Canada : it is probable that
the penalty was so financially effective in preventing
in
18
interference with a compulsory service that even the patriotic
opponents of the arbitrary ordinance hesitated before em-
=barking in a litigation which, in the Colony itself, would
be opposed by the self interest of the wealthy, and, probably of
the Intendant himself, and his subordinate judicial defen-
-dants; and which, at all events, could not be carried on
without considerable expense, before it could receive final
adjudication by the appellate jurisdiction of the Parliament of
Paris .

Although the absolute nullity of the Ordinance, with reference
to the establishment of slavery in Canada , cannot
be doubted, from what has been above stated, that nullity
manifestly follows from the following additional reasons.

Upon the trial of Boucaux, already referred to, it was
unhesitatingly admitted by the Counsel for both parties,
as well as by the Procureur du Roi, that the slave status
could attach only to the negro of the West-Indian and
African colonies, because he was a slave there par la loi
de l'Etat, and that such a status did not extend, even by
implication, to any other person, or to servitude for any
other cause, except that arising out of the necessarily
peculiar cultivation of the West-Indian Estates.

As stated above, the same fact of the localizing of
the slavery is also expressed in the preamble of the ordinance
by Raudot himself. The argument urged by
the Counsel for the Master, in Boncaux's case, rested
solely and entirely upon the local application and
effect of the exceptional Edicts of 1683 and 1716, and
candidly exempted from their operation all but the
negro slaves of those island colonies “on ne counoil
point il est vrai, d'esclave en France , et qui-conque
a mis le pied dans ce Royaume , est gratifiè de la
libertè. Mais, quelle est l'application, et quelle est la
distinction du principe Le principe est vrai dans

dans le cas ou tout autre esclave qu'un esclave négre
arrivera dans ce, Royaume. Par exemple, qu'un etran
ger, qu'un nègociant Francois , arrive dans ce Royaume
avec des sauvages qu'il prètendra etre ses esclaves;
qu'un Espagnol, qu'un Anglois, vienne en
ce Royaume avec des esclaves négres dèpendans dans
colonies de sa nation; voilá le cas dans le quel, parla
loi, par le privilege de la franchìse de ce Royaume , la
chaine de l'esclavage se brisera, et la libertè sera acquise
á de pareils esclaves.” The King's advocate adopts this
opinion without hesitation, and thereupon claims for
Boucaux that liberty which was conceded to all foreign
slaves coming into the territories of the Kingdom, and
then concludes: “de nos maximes, de nos usages, de
notre jurisprudence, il suit necessairement, qu'il ne
peut y avoir d'esclaves dans ce Royaume " (Causes
Celébres, vol XV).

I have desired to state at length and in the
language of the French jurisprudence itself, the grounds
upon which I have rested my opinion of the nullity
of Randot's Ordinance, which can derive no presumptive
support from the mere fact of the complexion of
the Canadian negro being the same as that of the West
Indian negro; a presumption which, however extravagant
and unfounded in itself, when applied
to the negro, cannot, in any manner, apply to the
Panis Indian captive; nor simply from the
Intendant's assurance that the labour of the Parìs
or negro would be beneficial to Canada .

I have refrained from testing the validity of
Randot's Ordinance by modern notions and feelings,
but have confined myself to the established jurisprudence
of France , which was law in Canada , and
to
to its recorded Judgments, co-eval and co-incident with
the Ordinance itself; hence my professional conviction,
that neither slavery itself, nor the slavery of any purchased
Panis or negro, would have been sustained in the appellate
tribunals of France , notwithstanding the purchase
of the subject, or the existence of an abusive practice
arbitrarily attempted to be legalized by the Ordinance
of the Intendant Randot .

It only remains to say a word upon the Ordonnance
of the Intendant Hoquart, of the first of September 1736,
which, in form, is not obnoxious to the nullities attachable
to that of that of Mr. Randot . It is of a mere police character
WB intended WB as a preventitive to litigation, and preservative
of the subject of proof of a particular fact, & simply provides
for the legal ascertainment of a fixed mode of enfranchisement,
by a written proof of the fact, requiring
the acte to be established by writing authentically
executed before notaries public, functionaries to whose actes full faith and credence were given by Law, and verbal testimony
avoided thereby.
I need not add, that any other effect that might be
ascribed to this second Ordinance would be obnoxious
to the same nullities as were applied to
the former.

W Badgley
Charles A Terroux
Com:

The necessary deductions from the authorities
and facts stated, which hav been carefully considered
and supported by the references, in general
literally trancribed, are, that the public law of
France did not allow or recognise the slavery of
negroes or other persons, either in France or in French
Canada ;- that the only law of local application
in Canada was a nullity:- and that though
a forced servitude de facto existed in the Colony,
it was an abusive servitude, servitude d'abus,
not sustained by any law having authoritative legal

legal sanction for its support; unlike Louisiana in this respect, where
the Royal permision was given to traffic in slaves, and where the King
not only sanctioned slavery by la loi del'Etat, but enacted the Edict of 1724
to regulate its police justice and administration in the Colony; Canada
possessed none of these, no authentic document can be found in her
archives or records which regulate the mode, or period or effects of servitude,
the extent of the Master's power, the period of the enforced subjection or
any of its incidents or consequences, either affecting the purchased person
himself or his offspring or any act of police justice or administration
connected with slavery. The reason is manifest, because the servitude,
such as it existed, was simply by the abuse of power, in those who
held the Panis and negros, and from the fear of the penalty imposed upon
“caux qui les debauchent” Yet slavery was not a legal status established
par la loi de l'Etat or by royal sanction, and could have had
no legal force upon the person of the so called slave (esclave). The
difference between slavery legally established, and enforced service of longer
or shorter duration, must be so manifest, as respects Canada , as not to
require further observation.

Fifth: Did the capitulation of the Canadians to the British arms, in September
1760 effect any, and what, change in the legal status or condition of negroes,
or other persons, then held by the Canadians as slaves?

Answer. As I do not recognize the legal existence of a
slave status in Canada previous to the capitulation of 1760, because
that status could have been established by Royal enactment only,
and which was in fact never made for Canada , the only effect of
the particular stipulation in the Capitulation regarding Panis
and negroes was, to leave them with the same natural rights that
they previously possessed. Even admitting the existence of an
abusive servitude de facto, as regarded that class of inhabitants, the
47th Article of the capitulation only stipulated, that the panis and
negroes should remain in the same quality of slaves, resterout dans
la meme qualite d'esclaves, in the possession of those who held them,
as they were before that stipulation; whilst, by other articles, all
the inhabitants remaining in the Colony became subjects of
the King of England and were no longer to be governed by the
laws
laws and usages established for the Colony: thus the entire body of the
people, of every class, so remaining and conquered by the arms of the
Crown of England, became subjects of that Crown by act and operation
of law. In the well known case of Campbell and Hall, Lord Mansfield
says: “in the acquisition by conquest, it is limited by the constitution
to the King's authority to grant or refuse a capitulation; if he
refuse and put all the inhabitants to the sword, all the lands belong to
him; if he receive the inhabitants under his protection and grant
them their property, he has the power to fix the conditions: the conquest
virtually naturalizes the inhabitants by the act and operation
of law, and they become subjects of the Crown of England", It was
also well urged in that case that “it is not, as fomerly, when the
conqueror gained captives and slaves and absolute rights by the
law of nations, but now the conqueror obtains dominion and
subjects.” Hence the effect of the capitulation was to operate a
change from the abusive slavery by which that class of persons had
been constrained en qualite d'esclaves, to the possession by
them of personal and public rights as British subjects.

The capitulation of Montreal in September 1760 differed in this particular
from that of Quebec in september 1759; both were careful for the
full and entire protection of the inhabitants, in all their property & effects,
houses and Goods, and even protected those of the military and religious
Orders, and enabling all to dispose of their property, if they determined
upon returning to French; whilst in the former only was contained
the stipulation respecting Panis & negroes, the latter not mentioning
these at all. The necessity for any mention of this particular &
class of persons could only have arisen from the unsatisfactory relation
subsisting between the purchasors and the purchased Panis & negroes
had these been considered as legal property, no special reference to them
would have been made, but the fact is the traffic was chiefly local from
the intercourse subsisting between the French Indians and the residents
of Montreal where the Indian trade was carried on at certain regular periods. Sixth: Did the capitulation effect any, and what, change in the legal
status or condition of the Children of such negro, or other
slaves, born after the capitulation?

Answer

Answer:- Every capitulation in itself is nothing but a
merely temporary consequence of superior military power
and cannot be extended to affect a subsequent condition
of things; nor could it extend to the children of those
negroes and Panis born after the capitulation, who, being
born subjects of the King of England, could not be affected
by any laws and usages previously established for the
colony, which, even if not set aside by the capitulation,
would have ceased to exist in this particular, as being
repugnant to the public law of the conquering state.

Seventh: Did the Treaty of Paris of the tenth of february 1763, and the
King's Proclamation of the seventh of October in the same
year, or either of them, effect any, and what, change in
the legal status or condition - 1st of the negros, or
other persons, held by the Canadians as slaves at the time
of the capitulation, - and 2ndly of the children born in
Canada of such negroes or other persons, either after the
capitulation, or after the treaty of peace?

Answer: They did so, not only by themselves but also
in connection with other public documents applicable to
the Colony. By the capitulation of 1760, the French
inhabitants remaining in Canada not only became
subjects of the King of England, but were deprived of their
former municipal laws, the Custom of Paris , and the
laws and usages established for the country, under which
they had been previously governed.

The following letter from the Marquis de Vaudreuil
Governor of Canada, to Mr. deBelestre, Governor of
Detroit, WB dated WB the day after the capitulation, otherwise interesting
in itself, is peculiarly so, as it indicates his appreciation
of the effects of the capitulation. The Marquis
observes: "Le Gènèral Anglais a declarè que les Canadians
deveusient sujets de S. M. Britannique, et par
cette raison le peuple n'a point ètè conserve dans la
C. A. T.
la coutume de Paris ."

"á Montreal , le 9 Septr. 1760.

“Je vous apprendo, Monsieur, que jai ètè dans la nècessitè
de capitular a l'armee du Gènèral Amherst. cette
ville est, vous pavez, sans defense, nos troupes etoieut considèrablement diminues, nos moyeus et ressources totalment èpuises.

“Nous etions entourès par trois armeès qui reunies
formoient au moins 30,000 hommes. Le Gènèral
Amherst etait au le de ce mois á la vue dea murs de
cette ville, le General Murray á porteè d'un de nos fauxbourgs,
et l'armeè du lac Champlain etoit á Laprairie
etá Longueuil. Dans ces circonstances, ne pouvant
rien esperer des efforts ni meme du sacrifice des troupes,
j'ai pris sagement le parti de capitules avec le Gènèral
Amherst, á des conditions tres avantageuses pours les colons,
et particulieremant pour les habitans du Dètroìt. En
effet, ils conservent le libre exercise de leur religion, et sont
maintenus en la possession de leurs biens meubles, immeubles,
et leurs Pelletries: ils out aussi le commerce libre
comme les propres sujets du Roi de la Grande Bretagne.

“Les memes conditions sont accordeès aux militaires,
et ils peuvent commethe des procureurs pour user en
leur absence de leurs droits; eux et tous les citoyens en
gènèral peuvent vendre aux Anglois et aux Francois leurs
biens, et en faire passer le produit en France , on l'emporter
avec lui, s'ils jugent á propos de s'y rètirer á la paix.

“Ils conservent leurs Nígres et Panis , mais ils sont obligès
de rendre ceux pris des Anglois.

"Le Genèral Anglois a dèclarè que les Canadiens
devenoient sujets de S. M. Britannique, el par cette
raison le peuple n'a point ètè conservè dans la coutume
de Paris .
“á

á l'egarde des troupes, il a ete impose la condition de
ne point servir pendant la presente guerre, et de mettre las
les armes: elles doivent etre en France . Vous ferez
donc, Monsieur, rassembler les Officers et soldats qui sont
dans votre poste, vous les ferez mettre las les armes, et vous
vous rendrez avec aux a tel port que l'on jugera a propos
pour de la passer en France .

“Les Citoyens et habitans de Detroit seront consequemment
sous le commandement de l'Officer que le gèneral
Amerst aura destìnè pour ce lieu.

“Vous ferez passer copie de ma lettre aux Miamis et
Scactanons, supposè qu'il ent quel ques soldats, afin qu'eux
et les habitans s'y conforment.

"Je compte avoir le plaisir de vous voir en France , avec
tous nos Messieurs. Madame de Beleotre jouit d'une
parfaite sante.

“J'ai l'honneur d'etre, tres sincerement,
Monsieur, Votre tres humble,
& tres obeissant serviteur,
(signe) Vaudreuil."

The French Governor himself thus admits the cessation
of the former laws and usages of the Colony; the difference in the capitulation
of Montreal ,
and that of Grenada,
a conquest also mentioned
in the Treaty of Peace and
in the Proclamation of 1763,
is manifest. By the former,
the French Canadian
colonists were deprived of
their governing laws and
usages, by the latter capitutation
these were preserved
to them 5th Article of the
Grenada capitulation:
“They shall preserve their
civil government, their
laws, customs and ordinaces;
justice shall be
administered by the same
officers who are now in
employment, &ca Answer;
They become British subjects,
but shall continue
to be governed by their
present laws until His
Majesty's pleasure is
known.” See case of
Campbell & Hall, where
Lord Mansfield , in his
judgment, says 3rdly,
articles of capitutation
upon which the conquest
is surrendered and treaties
of peace by which it is
ceded, are sacred and
inviolable, according
to their true intent.

W Badgley
Charles A Terroux
Com:

The treaty of peace of 1763 only secured the
liberty of the free exercise of the Roman Catholic religion
for the inhabitants of Canada , whilst the proclamation
erected the conquered province into a provincial government-
the Government of Quebec ,- gave power to the Governor to
summon general assemblies, and with them and the
Colonial council to make laws for the Colony, as near as
might be agreeable to the laws of England ; but assuring in
the mean time to all the inhabitants, and to all persons
resorting to the Colony, the enjoyment of the benefit of the
laws of England , pledging the Royal declaration to give power
power, under the great Seal of England , to the Governor of
the province, to erect Courts of judicature and of publice justice,
for hearing and determining all causes, criminal and civil,
according to law and equity, and as near as might be agreeable
to the laws of England .

The Royal Commission of November 1763 to the first
Governor, General Murray , did grant these powers; and
among others, the power at once to consitute such Courts of
Justice for hearing and determining such causes according
to law and equity, &ca; and the commission of September
1766 (nearly three years later), by which the first Chief
Justice of the Province, William Hey, Esquire, was appointed,
made it incumbent upon that high functionary
to administer justice in the Province “according to the laws
and customs of that part of our Kingdom of Great Britain
called England ." Extracts from the former, and a copy of
the latter, both duly authenticated, are hereto appended. By
the above mentioned public documents, plainly expressing
the King's will, the introduction into the Colony was of
course made of the laws of England , public and municipal;
the former regulating the status of individuals, making all
persons naturalized subjects, and giving to them the personal
and civil rights of British subjects, and the latter, or
common law, so far as applicable to the state of the Colony.

It is a well known principle of English law, that “upon
the conquest of a Country the law remains unchanged until
the will of the Conqueror is expressed.” That must be taken
as between subject and subject only, not as between the
Sovereign and subject; and it is also established, that
the power to alter the laws of a conquered country is a power
vested in the Crown, without any limitation as to the
advice under which it may be exercised whether by
proclamation or charter. (3 Knapp's Privy-Council
Reports, 1835, Jephson vs. Reira.)
There

There can be no reasonable doubt, that the proclamation
and commissions, above referred to, plainly express the
will of the King for the substitution in the colony of the law
of England for the law and usages which prevailed in the
French time. That the law of England did so prevail, unmistakeably
at least within the apprehension of the Chief
law-Officer of the Crown in Canada , appears from the draught
of the Report prepared by Mr. (afterwards Baron) Masers, Attorney
General for the Province, for submission by the Governor General and Council of the Province to the King , in 1769, in which,
observing upon the effect of the capitulation, it is remarked
“by which (namely, the 42nd article, and General Amherst's
answer thereto,) it should seem, that these Your Majesty's
new subjects in this Province were put upon the same footing
as Your Majesty's other subjects in other parts of Your
Majesty's British dominions with respect to the laws by
which they were to be governed, and the power of legislation
that was to be exercised over them for the time to come; and
that the continuance or abolition of their former laws and
customs was to depend entirely upon the future counsels
which Your Majesty, in your royal wisdom, should
find it expedient to pursue.” (Maseres' Collection of
Commissions &ca, London 1772, ) As mere matter of
fact, the English laws
was the prevailing and
recognised law of the
colony, and, on that very
account, became obnoxious
to the strong representations
against its continuance made by the French
colonists to the Government
at home for its removal,
and the restoration of
the old French system.
W Badgley
Charles Terroux
Com:

It is manifest, from these citations and references, that the
law of England became the measure of Justice, and of the
personal and public rights of every class of the inhabitants of
the province: that the negroes and Panis , with the other
resident colorists, by their submision to those laws, became
liable to all their penalties, and consequently, had a right
to all their privileges and protection.

If in fact the status of slavery ever had legal existence in
the Colony, it became absolutely abolished by contact with the
laws of England. A similar question of the status of individuals in the Colony, as to the enjoyment of civil rights,
arose
arose in a case in 1835, in which it was held, in effect, by
the Vice Chancellor of England , giving the Judgment of the
Privy Council in appeal from the Colony, that the status of
the party must be decided by the public law, the law of
England : and that being settled, the municipal law then
applied itself to the rights or property in contest. The Vice
Chancellor in the course of his judgment observed: the cession
of the Country to England of course varied the law of the country
in respect of the Sovereign:: when the King of England became
King of Canada, the natives of Canada became his subjects.
Canada became part of his dominions, subject to be governed
by its local laws. By the change of Sovereignty it happened,
that the law of England , and not the law of France or French
Canada , would, of necessity, determine the question. (3 Knapp's
P. C. Rep. Donegani v Donegani.)

The status of slavery, must, therefore, be settled by the
law of England ; but that law does not, in principle, recognise
the existence of slavery, except as the creature of municipal
laws; holding, that slavery is not a natural, but a municipal
relation, an institution confined to certain places, and
that a mere change from a place of contrary custom is sufficient
by that law to secure freedom. These principles were
established, after great argument, in the case of the Virginia
negro Somerset against his master Stewart , in which the
Court of King's Bench, Lord Mansfield presiding, distinctly
and expressly recognized the principle, that the
status of slavery was a municipal relation; an institution,
therefore, confined to certain places, and necessarily
dropped in a Country where such municipal relation
did not subsist. (1 Lofft's Rep: & 20 state trials.)

Coleridge, in a note to 1 H: Com: p. 124, remarks upon
the case, “the principle of decision is, that slavery is not a
state recognized by the law of nature generally, or by the
law

law of England locally; and wherein it legally exists, it
does so only by the force of some local law. Whenever, therefore,
a slave comes from a place where it is recognized, into a place
under the English law, he ceases to be a slave, because the local law
loses its force, and the English law itself neither suffers the relation,
nor will, by the comitas inter communitates, enforce any local
law contrary to the law of nature.” As long therefore, as the law of
England acknowledges the law of nature to be its great principle
and rule, so long must it reject a claim to a right of property in a
man, or in his labour and industry, founded on his being born of
a captive, or on his being seized on violently by a third person, and
sold to the claimant. To use Lord Mansfield's very forcible language
“the state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable
of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political,
but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after
the reasons, occasion, and time itself, from whence it was
created, are erased from memory. It is so odious, that
nothing can be suffered to support it but positive law.”

This English legal system was further sustained by the
terms of the before-mentioned commission to the Cheif Justice
of the King's Bench, and of the Commissions of other Officials
in Canada , and continued in full operation until the year
1774, when the British
statute 14 George III,
chapter 83, was passed,
which recalled the
French laws with
reference to property
and civil rights. Under
this statute no interference
was allowed
with what had already
been acquired or
judicially determined
under the operation
of the English laws.
W Badgley
Charles A. Terroux
Com.
Under this system of English law, public and private,
slavery had no legal existence from the cession of the Country,
as regarded the Panis and negroes referred to above, much
less their children, born after the capitulation and the treaty
of peace, who were free-born. Burge says," Children born
in England of parents, who had been in the Colonies, were not
only at the time of birth absolutely free, but continued so. There
could be no grounds for considering that the children would
become slaves even if they had returned to the Colonies. Such
was the admitted law of Jamaica, and it is belived of
every other West-India colony.” (1 Burge's Commentaries on
on Colonial & Foreign laws, p 751.) This is a conclusion of
the law of the County of the birth; not because the birth occurred
in this or that locality, but because it occured under the protection
of the particular system of the law of the County of the birth
being itself repugnant to slavery. In the case of
Lunsford vs. Coquillon, 2 Martin's Louisiana Reports,
page 408, before the Supreme Court of that state, it was assumed,
that if the statues of slavery were dissolved, according to the law
of the domicile of the owner, and of the slave who lives with
him, it would be considered as having legally ceased to exist in
every other place. So that incipient right to freedom of the issue
of a female slave, registered according to the laws of Pennsylvania ,
would prevail in Kentucky , notwithstanding her removal to
the latter state. Her freedom was not impaired by forcibly
removing her into Kentucky to defeat her attempt to assert her
freedom, nor by her subsequent removal, voluntary for forced,
into the state of Louisiana (1 Burge, loco citato).
Children born therefore after the capitulation, and after the
treaty, are unquestionalby free-born; and with reference to
them, it is difficult to discover a legal principle which
would sanction the position, that a person in possession ofthe
status of freedom could, by his own act, subject himself to
that of slavery." (1 Burge p. 750. see also the case of &
Rawle's Reports, p. 305 & seq..)

Eighth: Was the King's proclamation of the seventh of October 1763,
ever recognized by the British Parlimant as being legal,
and was it ever revoked or repealed?

Answer: It was so recognized by the British act for Canada ,
of 14 Geroge III. Chapter 83 (Known as the Quebec Act),
instituted, “An act for making more effectual provision for
the Government of the Province of Quebec &ca”, which came
into operation in May 1755. By this act, the criminal law
of England was continued in the Provinice, the "laws of Canada "
were to be resorted to “in all matters of controversy relative to property

property and civil rights,”- and in all causes thereafter to be
instituted in any of the Courts of Justice, with respect to such property
and rights, were to be determined agreeably to “the laws and customs
of Canada ;" but the act did not affect the personal rights
of Colonists, acquired under the proclamation and treaty.

Ninth: Were any municipal or other assessments or taxes raised or levied in Canada , for the expenses and purposes of Government, at the time of
the capitulation; - by what law or laws were they raised or levied,
and were slaves mentioned in any such law or laws as property ?

Answer: The Royal Edict of February 1748, which imposed assessments
I. 591.
or taxes upon a great variety of articles, does not make
mention of slaves. By the Code Noir of 1685, the West-Indian slaves
were expressly declared to be moveable property, Meubles; and so
also by the Louisiana Code Noir of 1724; but these laws, in that
respect, were municipal, and not applicable to Canada . No
law of Canada , at any time, has brought the purchased Negroes and
Panis within any such declaration, or converted them into
goods and Chattels.

Tenth: Since Canada came under the dominion of the British Crown or
Government, have negroes been permitted, in the Courts of Justice in
that Country to testify as witnesses in Civil and Criminal cases,
and have they been, and are they, Eligible to serve as Jurors, or to vote at
Elections? in fact, have they, by reason of their colour, laboured, or do
they labour, under any legal disabilities whatever, that white
men, in the same Country, did not, and do not, labour under?

Answer: Since the establishment of the British dominion in
Canada negroes have enjoyed the same Civil rights as other
natural born, or naturalized, subjects, of the Crown in the Colony,
without any disqualification whatever by reason of their complexion.

Eleventh: Was the subject of slavery ever brought under the consideration
of the Governor and Council of Canada , or Province of Quebec ,
before its division into Lower and Upper Canada , or under
the
the consideration of either branch of the parliament of either Lower or
Upper Canada after that division, - and if so, how was it brought
under consideration, and what was the result?

Answer: No application was made, or attempted, to the Governor
and Council (the then Provincial Legislature) from 1764 to 1791; a
negative proof of its non-existence, during that time. It was
brought under the Notice of the Parliament of Lower Canada in the
several years 1793, 1799, 1800, and 1801; but the prevailing impression
in Lower Canada was so powerful against the belief in
the possible existence of slavery that no legislation was allowed
or had upon the subject. The bills introduced before the
House of Assembly were dropped; and no action whatever
was taken before the Legislative Council. Since 1801, no attempt
whatever at legislation upon the matter has been
made. I subjoin extracts from the proceedings of the lower
Canada Parliament, as officially reported in the Journals
of the House of Assembly for the years above mentioned, which
I have compared with the entries in those books, acknowledged
in this country to be authoritative. The Original Manuscript
Journals was destroyed at the burning of the parliament
buildings in Montreal in 1849. These parliamentary
proceedings only arose from the dread of the United States' slaves,
brought into the province after the Declaration of Independence, being
continued as slaves, and differing from the servitude in the French
time. In the second session of the first parliament of
Upper Canada , held in 1793, a provincial act, 33 GeorgeIII.
Chapter 7, was passed, "to prevent the further introduction of slaves,
and to limit the term of contracts for servitude within this
province, “ which originated in the passing of the British statute
of 1790 30 George III, Chapter 27, for encouraging new settlers
in His Majesty's Colonies and Plantations in America ."
The British statute was unequivocally a mere emigration
act, declaring, in effect, the expediency of giving encouragement
to persons that were disposed, from among the resident
inhabitants of the United States generally, to come and
settle

settle in the scantily populated Bahamas, Bermudas, the
Province of Quebec , and Nova Scotia &ca. The enticement offered
for their encouragement to come within those British territories
with their families, negros, furniture, implements of husbandry
and cloathing, was a freedom from duty upon a
particular valued amount of those imported effects for each
white person of the family, and for each negro brought in.
Having thus encouraged their entrance into the province,
the statute at the same time discouraged their departure
from it, by withholding legal sanction from all sales or
bargains which those settlers might make of their negroes,
furniture or cloathing within twelve months after their
arrival. The statute necessarily referred to negros, by
reason of the existence of negro slavery in some, and of the
residence of free negros in others of the United States , to
which the general object and purport of the statute addressed
itself. Virginia , the Carolinas, and other states,
maintained the institution of slavery, whilst Pennsylvania
and the New England states had abolished it altogether,
after strenuous endeavours for the purpose from the
early part of the Eighteenth century. It was finally
abolished in Pennsylvania in 1780, and Connecticut
and Massachusetts soon followed the example. From the
commencement of the war of Independance to its close, by
the peace of 1783, the slave and negro population, respectively,
of the United States had been considerably reduced. The slave
states lost by deportation to the West Indies alone, it is said,
upwards of ten thousand slaves; whilst the negro population of
the New England states, without reference to Pennsylvania
and New York , had also suffered a reduction from 5249 in
1776 in Massachusetts , to 4377 in 1784, and from 6464 in
1774 in Connecticut, to 4373 in 1782. Many of both classes
had doubtless found their way into the British territories,
including Canada ; and hence the belief in 1790, that many
many loyalists still resident in those different states might
be enticed by the allurements of the statute to come into the
British territories. This statute was manifestly a law for
the occasion, including objects and things, as well as persons,
white and black, within its professed aim and intention,
namely the withdrawal of population and capital from the
United States for the benefit of British interests. No professional
reputation, however elevated, would justify to itself an attempt
to fasten the slave institution upon Canada by implication
alone; and any such attempt, made from the words of the
statute, would be a gross and unwarrantable perversion
of every legal rule in the constrution of statutes. The
British act must rest upon its own terms prore nata; and
whilst in themselves they expressed and created a special
exemption, they at the same time recognised the existence
of the general principle of freedom in those British territories
into which the Untied States subjects, or Citizens, were encouraged
to come with their families, negros, furniture, implements
of husbandry and clothing, by the offer of an exemption
from fiscal duty upon a limited value of those
effects, which they were expected to bring with them.

I have already stated the fact, that the Upper Canada
act originated in the intended application of the British
statute, which will be manifest from the provincial modification
imposed by it upon the power of license granted
to the Lieutenant Governor by the British Act, and without
which the benefit of the latter could not be obtained
at all. It is notorious, as matter of historical fact,
that in 1783-4, there were upwards of ten thousand person
resident in the upper part of the then province of Quebec ,
namely, now Upper Canada , and that they were, with
few exceptions, loyalist emigrants, who had left the
United States to continue under British allegiance. Of

Of this number, a large proportion were from the
New England states; and the result was marifested
at the earliest opportunity afforded to them, after the
establishment of Upper Canada as a separate Province
under the Act of 1791, the 31 George III, Chapter 31,
which, for the first time, gave effect to the Royal promise
contained in the proclamation of the formation of
Parliamentary Assemblies in the Province: up to that
time the local Government had been conducted by a
Governor and Council, the latter of whom were, with
scarcely an exception, composed of public officers resident
at or near the Seat of Government. At the first
session of the Parliament of that province, Upper Canada ,
the French laws and customs were abolished, as “being
manifestly and avowedly intended for the accommodation
of His Majesty's (French) Canadian subjects," and
not for "British subjects born and educated in countries
where the English laws were established,” and the laws
of England were therefore substituted by Act passed on
the fifteenth of October 1792, 32 George III Chapter 1.

InJuly 1793, in the second session of the same
Parliament, the Act 33 George III, Chapter 7, above
referred to, was passed, and the reason stated in the
preamble was, because it was “unjust that a people
who enjoy freedom by law should encourage the introduction
of slaves,” and because it was “highly expedient
to abolish slavery in this Province, so far as the same may
gradually be done without violating private property.”
This provincial act absolutely deprived the Lieutenant
Governor of the power of granting the necessary "license
for the importation of any negro or other person to be
subjected to the condition of a slave, or to a bounden
involuntary service for life,” and relieved such
negro
negro or other person from such slavery or involuntary
life service. It then proceeded to reduce voluntary
contracts of service to a period of nine years; and while
it sustained existing contracts with reference to negroes
who had come or been brought into the Province, in virtue
of public authority, or of any act of the Parliament of
Great Britain , it gave relief to the children born of
slaves, who were thereafter to remain in the service of
their master only until their twenty-fifth year;
manifestly a compensation to the master for his care
and support of them from their birth, whilst their children
were to be free-born subjects. This Provincial Act
was, to a certain extent, a modification of the Connecticut
Act of 1784, for a similar purpose; and I apprehend, cannot
be viewed as sustaining the slavery of any but those
slaves who had been brought into the province under
the pledge of the public faith, or by contract.

Twelfth: Was the question of the legality of the slavery of negroves,
or other persons, ever tested in any of the Courts of Justice
in the Province of Quebec , - or, after its division, in any
of those in Lower Canada ? and if yea, what was the
result of the test?

Answer: The question has been tested, but not frequently,
in the Civil Courts of the Province of Quebec , that
do, in the Courts of King's Bench and Common Pleas, as
well before as subsequest to its division into the two governments
of Lower and Upper Canada ; and, from an examination
of the cases brought before those Courts, the result
was unfavourable to the existence of slavery, or to its
recognition. I subjoin the following cases, which I
have taken from the authentic registers of the Courts of
Jutice in Montreal , in which such litigation took
place; and which seem to apply to Negroes from
the United States . Hoyle

action to recover possession
of, and to hold "two negro wenches," Sylvia- Jane , and
Ruth- Jane , sold by the Defendant, by Notarial Act of
fourth December 1785, which assigned them to one
Jacobs during of their natural lives. The Defendant
made default to appear, and the cause went undefended;
the Court in consequence, by Judgment of the
Eighteenth March 1788, adopting thePlaintiffs' demand,
condemned the Defendants to deliver up the wenches or
pay 50 currency.

Excluded

Povievs. LaGord:- Action to recover back the price
paid by the Plaintiff for John Brown , a negro, sold as a
slave by the Defendant. The record states, that Brown
was not a slave, and the Judgment of the third of July 1788,
in conformity with the records, was in favour of the plaintiff;

Mittleberger vs Langan:- An action, similar to
the one last-mentioned, for the price paid for a negro, named
nNero. The record shews that the negro had been made a
prisoner of war by the Mowhawk Indians, at Ballston in the
state of New York , from the property of his master Colonel
Gordon, and brought into Montreal , where the Plaintiff
as the agent of the Mohawks, sold him, that he was confined
in the Provots prison at Montreal , as a prisoner
of war, and received military rations as such, and that
on his being discharged from the prison, by Brigadier
M. Lean, the commanding Officer, he returned to his former
master, Colonel Gordon, at Ballston, where he had
been seen by the witness. On this Evidence the plaintiff
obtained judgment in his favour on the twentieth of
January, 1789.

Turner & Wife vs. Sullivan : - Action for balance
of price for Manuel , sold as a slave. Manuel had
been sold as a slave for his natural life, and had
had
Excluded
had afterwards, on the same day, entered into articles
of servitude with Sullivan , the Defendant, to serve him
for five years, and then be free. The plea was, that
Manuel was not a slave, and that the plaintiffs had
deceitfully represented him as being a slave, and thereby
obtained from the defendant certain payments amounting
to 18, on account of the price; and of which payments
the Defendant by an incidental demand claimed the
repayment, with damages &ca. Manuel himself
intervened in the cause, and claimed his freedom under
the law of the land. In February 1799, the Court dismissed
the action, for want of any title in the plaintiffs to
tranfer any property in Manuel , and, on the incidental
demand, condemned the plaintiffs to repay the 18. to
the defendant.

Smith vs Macfarlane: - Action in trespass
for taking away Catherine Coll, the Plaintiff's wife,
and for retaining her cloathes. Plea not proved, and
verdict for the plaintiff for 50, currency, Appeal
to the Court of King's Bench, who Ordered, Nineteenth
July 1793, a venire de novo, on technical objections
to the regularity and sufficiency of the pleadings, and
from defect of proof, on both sides, at the trial. Upon
the return of the record to the Court below, the Common
Pleas Judgment was rendered on the twenty eighth day
of February 1794, after much argument, chiefly upon
technical grounds of informality in the pleadings filed,
and upon the mode of proceeding to proof on the two questions
of marriage and slavery, whether it should be
before the Court according to the procedure of the French Court,
or before a Jury according to English practice. By the Judgment
the Defendant was ordered to replead, and to establish
an issue: the Court expressing its opinion
upon

upon the two points of proof above - mentioned in the following
terms, copied from the authentic register of the Court
of that day:- “Ces deux points sont deux questions
purement de droit, dans la maniere que les parties
offrent de les etablir, ce no pouvant etre des questions
defait, car les loix de cette province n'admettent point
de mariage lègitime, ni d'esclavage defait, sans titre
authentique et loix expresses.

Excluded

The King , on the application of Robin , a black
man, for a writ of habeas corpus: The negro,
Robin , had been purchased in the City of New York in
1783, whilst still in British possession, and became his
master's servant, with whom he removed to Nova Scotia ,
and afterwards to Newfoundland, and finally came
with him to Montreal . After his arrival in Montreal ,
he was committed to the common gaol of the District,
by warrant of three Justices of the Peace, for absenting
himself from his owner's house without leave. On
habeas corpus granted, and after argument in Banco
before Chief Justice Monk and Judges Ogden and
Panet , the negro was discharged, by Judgment rendered
on the Eighteenth of February, 1800.

Copies of the several before mentioned Judgments, duly
authenticated, are hereto annexed.

The Registers of the Courts have been carefully examined
by me since 1761 until after 1802, and no
other cases connected with slavery have been found.
The above, except those of Manuel and Robin , chiefly turn
upon the rights of the parties under the contracts of sale
between themselves, as purchasers and vendors, in relation
to the consideration money, and apart from the individual
rights of the negro or subject sold, to hold himself
no slave. Such contracts for sale may be valid as between
the parties, and the law would readily hold
them
them upon their Contracts but the person of the slave was
not the object of litigation. It is only in those of
Manuel and Robin , where the negroes themselves were
personally in Court, and in both of these they were relieved
from the effect of servitude. It is not to be wondered
at that judicial opinion was not sooner expressed.
Judicial action cannot be expected to arise ex mero
motu of the Judges themselves, and Courts must be
moved before their opinion can be required.

It is singular, however, that no case can be found
of record in the archives of the Courts, under the British
or French rule, in which involuntary servitude has been
judicially sustained, or in which application for freedom
has been judicially denied; and it is still more
singular, that none of the cases above mentioned applied
to the purchased negroes or Panis , the so-called
Esclaves of the French rule, or to their descendants,
and offspring, of whom some may still have existed
en qualite d'esclaves, as before the capitulation, but not
by constraint of law, or of the judgments of Courts of
Justice. The contracts of servitude above referred to,
with others to which I have had access, executed in
Montreal from1780 to 1790 or 1780, always stipulate
the sale either of a life service, for “the term of his
natural life” or for a longer or shorter period of service,
but in no case does it interfere with the acquisitions
of the purchased persons, or stipulate regulations over
his wife and children; the ingredients of slavery in no
case that I have examined, are added to or form part of
the contract, which is limited in all of them to mere
service, more or less prolonged so also in the French
time it did not assume any other shape than
mere enforced service, pour sa vie durante, or for a
certain

number of years of service, and most assuredly
never did descend from the parent to the children

With reference to my foregoing answer, and
more particulary to my answers to the fourth and ninth
interrogatories, I append hereto the first volume of the
Edits, Ordonnances &ca therein referred to, and containing the
several public documents therein mentioned. The said
volume was printed and published in this Province in 1854,
by direction of the Excutive Government in compliance with
an address of the Legislative Assembly of the Province and
is held by all the Courts of justice in Lower Canada to be
authentic and self-proved.

W Badgley

I Charles A Terroux , the Commissioner
herein before named, do hereby certify, that the
Honorable William Badgley , the deponent, was
duly sworn and examined, and his examination
bring reduced to writing, it was subscribed by
him in my presence, on the fifth day of
February, one thousand eight hundred and
fifty-nine, in the Court-house in the City of
Montreal .

Charles A Terroux
Com

And thereupon the Plaintiff's agent and Attorney having
declared that he has no further evidence to advance, the
said or commission is closed. Witness my hand
and the respective hands of the said Attorneys and Agents
of the parties on the day and year last above-mentioned.

F. Griffin for Pltff
J J C Abbott
Atty for Defnt
Charles A Terroux
Com

Paiques Randot &ca

Ayant une connoissance partfaite de l'avantage
13 avrit
ordce. rendue au
sujet des Magres et
des sauvages panis.
quecette colonie retireroit si on pouvoit
l eurement y mettre par des achapts que les
habitans en feroient, des sauvages quon nomme
Panis dont la nation est tris Elognee de ce
pais, et quon ne purt avoir que par les
sauvages qui les vont prendle chez Eux et
Leu et public a leglise de la lasse
ville issue de la
misse de sent heuris
et ala prite de
l'eglise parroisialle
de cette ville de Quebec issue de grande
ce21. april
1709par may huissier
audiancier en la
de Quebec
y resident Rue St.
Pierre signi
Congnet..
les traffiquent le plus souvent avec les Anglois
de la coroline et qui en ont quelques fois vendre
aux gens deu pais, les quels se trouvent fouvent
frustrez des pommes considerables quils en
donment par une idee de liberte que leur
impirent aux qui ne les ent pas achetez ce que
fait qu'ils quittent quasi tory crers leurs Maitees,
et ce sous pretexte quen france il n'y 'a point
d'esclaves, ce qui ne se francee pas
bray par raport aux colonies qui independent,
puisque dans les Isles deu Continent tous
les negros que les habitans achetteut font
tousser regardez comme tels et comme toute
des Colonies doient Etre regardeas
Meme pied et que les peuples de la Nation
Panis font aussy aux habitant
de ce pais pour la Culture dis terres etauties
ouvrages qoun pirirent Entreprendre Comme
les Negres le sont aux Isles et que mesme
ces poutes d engagements sont tus untille a
cette Colonie Elant necessaire d'en assures
la propriete a aux qui en out achete et que
en acheterent a lavenix

Nous sous le bon plaisir de sa Majeste
ordennous que tous les Panis et Negres
qui ont ete achetez et qui le servent dans la
suite appartiendrout en plaisir preopriete
a Ceux qui les ont achetez, comme etant
leurs Esclaves, faisons deffenses d Panis
et Negres de quitter leurs Maisies et a
qui que ce soit de les debaucher sous
peine de 50 d'amaude, ordonnance
que la presente ordonnance sera lue et
publice aux Edrits accoutumez es irlles
de Quebec , trois et Rivieres et
Montreal et
quille sera enrigistree aux gresses des
preoustez dicelles a la deligeme de nos
fait et donne a notre hotet a Quebec
le 13 avril 1709. signe Raudot

I do hereby Certify
the

the foregoing to be a true copy from the
original as on Record in the office of
at Quebec in a french Register instituted
Randot No 5 for his 32 And that on a
general search through the French Register no
confirmation of the foregoing is to be found

of the

This is the copy, with authenticating certificate, of the
Ordonnance of the Randot , referred to in the
of the Honble Wm Badgley to the fourth interrogatory
by his signature and that of the undersigned commissioner

Montreal 5th February 1859.
W Badgley
Charles A Terroux
Com

316 52
13. Avril 1709

Ordce rendre au sujet
negres et sauvages
Panis

Edit & Ord.
Vol II p. 67.

G.R.
Geroge the Third, by the Grace of God,
of Great Britain, France, and Ireland
King, Defender of the Faith, and so
forth, to our Trusty and well beloved
James Murray , Esquire, Greeting.

We, resposing especial trust and comfidence
in the prudence, courage and loyalty of
you, the said James Murray , of our
especial grace, certain knowledge, and
mere motion, have thought fit to constitute
and appoint, and by these
presents do constitute and appoint, you
the said James Murrary, to be our Captian
General and Governour in Chief in and
over our Province of Quebec in America ;
Bounded on the Labrador Coast by the
River St John; and from thence by a
line drawn from the head of that
River through the Lake St. John to
the South end of Lake Nipissin,
from whence the said Line crossing the
River St Lawrence and the Lake
Champlain, in forty five degrees of
Northern Latitude, passes along the high
lands which divide the Rivers that
empty themselves into the said River St
Lawrence from those which fall into the
Sea; and also along the North Coast
of the Baye des Chaleurs and the Coast
of the Gulf of St Lawrence to Cape
Rosieres; and from thence crossing the
Mouth of the River St Lawrence by the
West End of the Island of Anticosti,
terminates at the aforesaid River St.
John;

Together with all the rights, members,
and appurtenances whatsover there unto
belonging.

And we do hereby require and
command you to do and excute all
things in due manner that shall
belong to your said Command and
the trust we have reposed in you,
according to the several powers and
directions granted or appointed you by
this present commission and the instructions
and authorities herewith given
unto you, or by such other powers,
instructions and authorities as shall
at any time hereafter be granted or
appointed under our signet and sign manual,
or by our order in our privy
Council, and according to such reasonable
laws and statutes as shall
hereafter be made and agreed upon
by you with the advice and consent
of the Concil and Assembly of our
said Province under Your Government
in such manner and form as is herein
after expressed.

And we do hereby give and grant
unto you, the said James Murray ,
full power and authority with the
advice and consent of our said Council
to be appointed as aforesaid, so soon as
the situation and circumstances of our
said Province under your Government
will admit thereof, and when and as
often as need shall require, to summon
and call general assemblies of the freeholders
and planters within your government
in such manner as you in your
discretion shall judge most proper; or
according to such further powers, instruction
and authoristies as shall be at
any time hereafter granted or appointed
you under our signet or sign manual
or by our order in our Privy Council.

And we do hereby declare that the
persons so elected and qualified shall be
called The Assembly of that our Province
of Quebec ; and that you, the said James
Murray by and with the advice and
consent of our said Council and assembly,
or the major part of them, shall have
full power and authority to make, constitute,
and ordain, laws, statutes, and
ordinances, for the public peace, welfare, and
and good government of our said province,
and of the people and inhabitants thereof,
and such others as shall resort thereunto,
and for the benefit of us, our heirs and
successors; which said laws statutes and
ordinances are not to be, repugnant but
as near as may be, agreeable to the
laws and statutes of this our Kingdom
of Great Britain .

Provided that all such laws, statutes,
and ordinances of what nature or duration
soever they shall be, within three months
or sooner, after the making thereof, transmitted
to us, under our seal of our said
province, for our approbation or disallowance
of the same, as also duplicates thereof,
by the next Conveyance.

And we do by these presents give
and grant unto you the said James
Murray full power and authority with
the advice and consent of our said
Council, to erect, constitute and establish
such and so many Courts of Judicature
and Public justice within our said
province under your government as you
and they shall think fit and necessary for

for the hearing and determining of all
Causes, as well Criminal as Civil, according
to law and equity, and for awarding execution
thereupon, with all reasonable and
necessary powers, authorities, fees and
privileges belonging there into.
And we do hereby declare, ordain and
appoint that you, the said James
Murray , shall and may hold, excute
and enjoy the office and place of our
Captain General and Governour in Chief
in and over our said Province of Quebec
and all the territories depending thereon
with all and singular the powers and
authorities hereby granted unto you,
for and during our will and pleasure.
In witness whereof we have caused these
our Letters to be made patent.

Witness ourself at Westminster the twenty
first day of November in the fourth year
of our Reign.By Writ of Privy Seat
(Signed) Yorke & Yorke.

Recorded at the Treasury Chambers ,
Whitehall, the 28th day of November 1763.

(Signed)T. Tomlyns

Recorded in the Reister's Office in Quebec , the
7th day of June 1766.

(Signed) I Goldfrap D. Regr.

Provincial Registrar's Office
Toronto1st February 1859

I hereby Certify That the within are
true Extracts from the commission
appointing James Murray Esq. Captain
General and Governor in Chief of the Province
of Quebec in America , as entered upon
the Records of this office

Wm Kent
Depy Registar

This within are the authentic and Extracts from the
Commission of James Murrary, as Governer in Chief of the
Province of Quebec , referred to in the answer of the
Wm. Bardly to the 7th identified by his signher
and that of the undersign Commissioner.

Montreal 5th February 1859.
W Badgley
Charlis A Turrause
Com:.

By His Excellency The Right Honorable Sir Edmund Walker
Head, Baronet, One of Her Majesty's Most Honorable Privy
Council, Governer General of British North America , and
Captain General and Governer in Cheif in and over the Provinces
of Canada , Nova Scotia , New Brunswick, and the Island
of Prince Edward , and Vice Admiral of the same, &c., &c.,
&c.,

To all to whom these Presents shall come-Greeting:

These Are To Certify that William Kent
whose name is subscribed to the annexed document
is the Deputy Registar duly
approved in and forthat part of the Province of Canada called Canada , and
that full faith and credence are due and ought to be given to such signature and act
in all places.

Given under my Hand and Office Seal, at
this firstday
of February, in the year of Our Lord,
one thousand eight hundred and fifty nine
and of Her Majesty's Region the seventy second
By Command,

Acct. of Fees

Quebec . Ss. George the Third by the Grace of
God, of Great Britain, France and
Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith,
and so forth; To our trusty and
well beloved William Hey, Esquire,
Greeting.

Know Ye, that He, having taken
into our royal consideration your loyalty,
integrity, and ability, have assigned,
constituted, and appointed, and we do
hereby assign, constitute and appoint you,
the said William Hey, our Chief Justice
of and in our Province of Quebee, in
America , so enquire, by the Oaths of honest
and lawful Men of the Province afore-
said, and by other lawful ways, methods
and means, by which you can or may
the better know, as well within liberties
as without, of whatsoever treasons, mis
prisions of treason, insurrections, rebellions,
murders, felonies, homicides, Killings,
burglaries, rapes of women, unlawful
congregations and assemblies, words spoken,
misprisions, confederacies, false allegations,
trespasses, riots, routs, escapes, contempts,
falsities, negligencies, concealments, main-
senances, oppressions, Champarlies, deceits,
and other misdoings, offences, and
injuries
injuries whatsoever; as also of the acces-
saries thereto within the province aforesaid,
as well within liberties as without, by
whomsoever and howsoever had, done,
perpetrated or committed, or which here-
after may happen to be done, perpetrated
or committed, and by whom, to whom,
when, where, and how, and of all other
articles and circumstances the premises, or
any of them, any wise concerning; and
the said treasons and other the premises
to hear and determine, according to the
law and custom of that part of
Kingdom of Great Britain called England , and of
our said province of Quebec hereafter
to be made.

Therefore we command, that at such
certain days and places as you shall
appoint, you make diligent inquiry
of the premises; and all and singular
the premises you hear and determine;
and the same do and fulfil in form
aforesaid, doing therein that which to
justice doth belong or appertain, according
to the law and custom of that part
of our Kingdom of Great Britain called
England , and of our said Province of
Quebec hereafter to be made; saving to
us our americanments and other things
thereby to us belonging: for we will -
command

command all and every our Sheriffs or Marshat of our Province aforesaid,
that at such certain days and places as
you, our Chief Justice, shall make Known
to him, them or any of them, they cause
to come then and there before you such
and so many honest and lawful men
of our said province, as well within
liberties as without, by whom the truth
of the matter may be the better known
and inquired of.

And further know Ye, that we
have assigned, constituted and ap-
pointed, and by these presents do assign
constitute and appoint you, the said
William Hey, our Gaol of our Province
aforesaid of the prisoners therein hereafter
to be to deliver. And therefore we
command you that, at such certain
days and places as you shall appoint,
you come to our Court House of our
said province the Gaol in our said
province of the prisoners hereafter
therein to be to deliver, doing therein
what to Justice doth, or may, belong
or appertain, according to the law and
custom of that part of our Kingdom
of Great Britain called England , and of
our said province of Quebed hereafter to
be made; saving to us our americ-
ments and other things thereby to
us
us belonging; for we will command all
and every our Sheriffs and Provost
Marhal of our aid Province of Quebec ,
that, at such certain days and places as
you, our said Chief Justice, shall
make known to him, them or any of
them, they cause to come then and
there before you, our said Chief Justice,
all the prisoners of the same Gaol
and their attachments.

And further Know ye, that we
have assigned, constituted and appointed
and by these presents do assign conti_
tute and appoint you, the said Wil-
liam Hey, our Chief Justice of our
Supreme Court of judicature of our said
Province of Quebec , to inquire, by the
Oaths of honest and lawful men of
the province aforesaid, and by other
lawful ways, methods and means by
which you can or may the better
know, as well within liberties as with-
out, of all Civil pleas, actions and
suits, as well real and personal as
mixed, between us and any of our
subjects, or between party and party,
by whomsoever had, brought, sued and
commenced, and of all other articles
and circumstances the promises, or any
of them any wise concerning; and the said
Pleas

Pleas, actions and suits, and every of
them to hear and determine in manner
and form aforesaid, doing therein that
which to justice doth belong and apper-
tain, according to the law and Custom
of that part of our Kingdom of Great
Britain called England , and the laws,
ordinances, rules and regulations of our
said province of Quebec hereafter in
that behalf to be ordained and made.

Therefore we command you, that,
at such certain days and places as
you shall appoint, you make dili
gent inquiry of the premises; and all
and singular the premises to hear
and determine in maimes and form
aforesaid; doing therein that to which
to justice doth belong or appertain, accor-
ding to the law and custom of that
part of our Kingdom of Great Britian
called England , and the laws, ordi-
nances, rulers and regulations of our
said province of Quebec hereafter in
that behalf to be made; for we will
command all and every our Sheriffs
or provost Marshal of our province afore
said, that at such days and places as
you, our said Chief Justice, shall make
known to him, them or any of them,
they cause to come then and there
before you such and so many honest
and
and lawful men of our said province,
as well within liberties as without, by
whom the truth of the matter may
be the better known.

To have, hold and exercise the
said office of our Cheif Justice of
and in our said Province of Quebec
for and during our royal will and
pleasure and your residence within
our said province; together with all
and singular the rights, profits, free
privileges and emoluments to the said
office belonging, in as full and ample
manner as any other Cheif Justice
of any of our provinces in America
hath heretofore held and enjoyed or
of right ought to have, hold or
enjoy the same, with full power
and authority to hold the supreme
Courts of Judicature at such places
and times as the same may or
ought to be held within our said
province.

In testimony whereof we have
Caused these our Letters to be made
patent, and the great seal of our
said

said province of Quebec to be hereunto
affixed and to be entered on record in
one of the books of patents in our
Registers Office of Imollments of the said
Province.

Witness our trusty and well be-
loved the Honourable Guy Carleson,
Esquire, our Lieutenant Governer and
Commander in Chief in and over our
said Province of Quebec , and the
thereon depending in America
at our Castle of St Lewis, in our said City
of Quebec the twenty fifth day of
September in the year of our Lord
one thousand seven hundred and
sixty six, and in the Sixth year of
our Reign.
L. S. (signed) Guy Carleton.By the Lieutenant Governour's Command
(signed) J. Goldgrap.
. Secretary.

Fiat of the above Commission

Recorded in the Register's office at
Quebec the 25th day of September 1766

(signed) J. Goldgrap,
D. Registar

Provincial Registrars Office
Toronto1st Febuary 1859

I hereby Certify That the within is
a true and correct Copy of Commission
appointing William Hey Esquire Chief
Justice of the province of Quebec , as
entered upon the Records of this Office

Wm. Kent
Depy Registar

This within is the authentication copy of the Comission of
William Hey, as Chief Justice of the Province of Quebec
to in the answer of the Hon William Badgby to the
identified by his signature and that of the undersigned
Commission.

Montreal 5th February 1859.
W Badgley
Charles A Turrousel
Com:.

By His Excellency The Right Honorable Sir Edmund Walker
Head, Baronet, One of Her Majesty's Most Honorable Privy
Council, Governer General of British North America , and
Captain General and Governer in Cheif in and over the Provinces
of Canada , Nova Scotia , New Brunswick, and the Island
of Prince Edward , and Vice Admiral of the same, &c., &c.,
&c.,

To all to whom these Presents shall come-Greeting:

These Are To Certify that William
Esquire
whose name is subscribed to the annexed
document is the Deputy Registar
duly appounded in and for
that part of the Province of Canada called Canada and
that full faith and credence are due and ought to be given to such signature and act
in all places.

Given under my Hand and Office Seal, at Toronto
this firstday
of February, in the year of Our Lord,
one thousand eight hundred and fifty nine
and of Her Majesty's Reign the twenty second

By Command,

of Fees

Extracts
from the
Journal of the House of Assembly
of Lower Canada .

House of Assembly - Lower Canada ,
Monday 28th January, 1793.

Mr. P. L. Panet moved for leave to bring in a
Bill, intitled “An Act tending to abolish slavery
in the Province of Lower Canada ," in which he
was seconded by M. Duniere.
Agreed to unanimously and leave given accordingly.

Tuesday 26th February 1793.

W. P. L. Panet in consequence of permission former-
ly obtained from this House, brought up and read in
french and english the draft of an Act intituled
“An Act tending to the abolition of Slavery.”

Friday 8th March 1793.

M. Bonav. Panet moved in french translated as
follows: that the draft of a Bill intituled “An Act
“tending to the abolition of Slavery” be now read
for the first time.
And

And was seconded by w. Bershelot,

And the said draft of a Bill intituled “An Act
“tending to the abolition of Slavery” was read for the
first time in English and in french.

Friday, 19th April 1793.

Read for the second time, the Bill intituled “ an
“act tending to the abolition of Slavery.”

M. P. L. Panet then moved (in french) seconded
by W. Berthelot, that this House do resolve itself
into a Committee of the whole House, on the Bill
tending to the abolition of Slavery, Thursday next,

Debates arose and _

M. DeBonne moved (in bench) in amendment
to M. P. L. Panet's motion that after the word "that"
in the first line, the rest of the said motion be struck
out, and the following substituted, “the Bill tending
“to the abolition of slavery, remain upon the table.”
In which he was seconded by M. Mc. Blath.

The debates were renewed on M. DeBonnis amend-
-ment to M. P. L. Panets motion, and the question
being put thereon, the House divided.

For the affirmative -31For the negative -3

Carried in the affirmative by a majority of 28 votes.
Then the question was put on the Motion as amen-
ded, and the same passed unanimously in the
affirmative.

Ordered, that the Bill intituled “An Act tending
“to the abolition of slavery,” do remain upon the
table.

House of Assembly,
Lower Canada
Friday 19th April 1799.

A Petition from sundry persons inhabitants
of the City of Montreal , whose names are thereunto
subscribed, was presented to the House by Mr.
Papineaw: and the same was received and read.

Setting forth: That by an Ordinance of
Jacques Raudot, Intendant of Canada ,
bearing date the thirteenth day of April, which was
in the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred
and nine, registered and published according to law,
It is Ordained, under the good pleasure of His
Most Christian Majesty, that all Panis and
Negroes which, before then were, and which there after
should be purchased in Canada , should appertain,
in full property, to the purchasers thereof, as their proper
slaves; and the said Panis and Negroes are thereby
enjoined not to leave the service of their Masters, and
all persons not to encourage them to desert, or harbour
them under a penalty of fifty livres.

That His Most Christian Majesty did never
signify his displeasure or disapprobation of the said
Ordinance, whereby the same was in force at the
definitive Treaty of Peace and Cession of this Pro=
=vince to His Majesty, and therefore by the Statute
of the 14th George III Chapter 83d, commonly called
the Quebec Act, makes now part of the Laws, usages
and Customs of Canada .

That the Importation of Negroes from Africa
to the West India Islands and British Plantations,
has,
has, from the firt establishment of an African Com
pany, and since the Trade has been ser free to all
His Majesty's subjects, under Parliamentary Regula-
-tions, been deemed lawful, and the owners of such
Negroe vested with the right and power of selling
them and their children, whereby Slavery was effec=
tually established in the said Islands and Plantations.

That by the Statute of the 5th Geo. II. Chap y. Section 4,
intituled, "An act for the move easy recovery of debts
"in his Majesty's Plantations and Colonies in
" America ," It is enacted," That from and after the
“Twenty-ninth day of september, one thousand seven
“hundred and thirty two, the Houses Lands, Negroes
“and other pereditaments and real Estates, situate
“or being within any of the said Plantations belong-
"ing to any person indebted, shall be liable to, and
“chargeable with, all just debts, duties and demands
“of what nature or kind soever, owing by any such
“person to His Majesty or any of His subjects, and shall
“and may be assets for the satisfaction thereof, in like
"manner as real Estates are by the laws of England
“liable to the satisfaction of Debts due by Bond or other
“specialty, and shall be subject to the like remedies,
“proceedings and process in any Court of Law or Equity,
“in any of the said Plantations respectively, for seizing,
“extending, selling or disposing of any such Houses,
“Lands, Negroes, and other hereditaments and real
“Estates, towards the satisfaction of such debts, duties
“and demands, and in like manner as personal
“Estates in any of the said Plantations respectively,
“are seized, extended, sold or disposed of for the satis-
"=faction of debts.”_ Which Statute forms a part of
the Laws of the Province under the Quebec Act, where-
-by all Acts of Parliament before then made, concerning
or respecting the said Colonies and Plantations, are
declared to be in force within the said Province of
Quebec , and every part thereof.
That

That by the Statute 30 Geo.III. Chap 27th intituled
“An act for encouraging new settlers in His Majesty's
"Colonies and Plantations in America ," It is enacted,
“That from and after the first day of August, one
“thousand seven hundred and Ninety, if any person
“or persons, being a subject or subjects of the territories
"or countries belonging to the United States of America ,
“shall come from hence, together with his or their family
“or families, to any of the Bahama or Bermuda or
“Somers Islands, or to any part of the Province of
“ Quebec , or Nova-Scotia, or any of the territories belong
"ing to His Majesty in North America , for the purpose
“of residing and settling there, it shall be lawful for any
“such person or persons having first obtained a Licence
"for that purpose from the Governer , or, in his absence,
“from the Lieutenant Governer, of the said Islands,
“Colonies or Provinces respectively, to import into the
"same in British ships, owned by His Majesty's sub-
"-jects, and navigated according to Law, any Negros,
“Household furniture, Utensils of Husbandry, or
“Cloathing free of duty.” And it is also enacted by
the said Act,” That all sales or Bargains for the sale
"of any Negro, Household Furniture, Utensils of
“Husbandry, or cloathing so imported, which shall
“be made within Twelve Calendar Months after
“the Importation of the same, (except in cases of
“the Bankruptcy or death of the owner thereof) shall
“be null and void to all intents and purposes what=
=sover.”

That upon the faith of His Majesty's Governments,
solemnly pledged by the above mentioned laws, the
inhabitants of this Province in General and the
inhabitants of the City and District of Montreal ,
in particular have purchased for a valuable con=
sideration a considerable number of Panis and Negro Slaves; and
divers persons formerly subjects of the United States
of America , have, upon the faith of the above in part
recited
recited Statute of 30th George III. Chapter 27th, import-
-ed
into this Province, according to Law, a number of
Negros Slaves belonging to them; and which Panis
and Negro slaves have always demeaned themselves
in a becoming manner until lately, that they have
imbibed a refractory & disobedient spirits under
pretext that no Slavery exists in the Province.____
In February 1798, one Charlotte , a Negro woman,
belonging to a Miss Jane Cook absconded, from the
service of her mistress, and having refused to return,
was upon a complaint on Oath, apprehended in vir=
=tue of a warrant from a Magistrate, and having
still persisted in refusing to return to her duty, was,
upon legal conviction, committed to the prison of the
District (for want of a House of Correction;) but
having applied for, and obtained a Writ of Habeas
Corpus, she was in vacation, discharged by his
Honor the Chief Justice of this District, without be-
-ing obliged to give security for her appearence in
the Court of Kings Bench. Upon this enlargement,
the Negroes in the City and District of Montreal ,
threatened a general revolt; and one Jude,
Negro woman belonging to Elias Smith, of Mon=
-treal, Merchant, purchased by him at Albany,
on the 27th day of January 1795, in consideration
of Eighty pounds, New York Currency, absconded,
and refusing to return, was, upon conviction,
committed to prison; but upon conviction,
committed to prison; but upon a Petition pre=
sented by her to the Court of King's Bench for this
District, holding criminal pleas, she was on the
eighth day of March, 1798, without deciding
upon the question of Slavery, discharged; the
Chief Justice declaring at the same time, in
open Court, that he would, upon Habeas Corpus,
discharge every Negro, indented Apprentice, and
Servant, who should be committed to Gaol under
the Magistrates, Warrant in the like cases.
That

That His Majesty's Justice of the Peace having
thus no power to compel absconding slaves to return
to their owner's service, nor the owners any power to
enforce obedience, or detain their slaves in their
service, Your memorialists forsee that alarming
consequences to this Province may ensue therefrom
independent of the great loss which his Majesty's
Subjects of this Province, owners of Negro slaves, and
the Creditors of such owners, may sustain by the
disability such owners now labour under of pre=
=serving their property in their slaves.

That it may therefore please this House to frame
an act to be passed into a Law, ordining and
enacting, That (until provision shall be made by
Law for establishing a House of Correction), whenever
any Panis or Negro Slave shall desert from his owner's
service in this Province it shall be lawful to proceed
against him or her in the manner directed and
provided for against indented apprentices and
Servants in England in Great Britain , and to com-
-mit him or her to the common Gaol of the district
where he or she may be apprehended, there to be detain
-ed as effectually as if the same was such House of
Correction, as by the Laws respecting indented appren
=tices and servants in England is intended; and
that the Keeper of the Gaol shall be as compellable
to receive and detain such slave or slaves, under
the Penalties to which a Keeper of a House of Correction
may be liable on a commitment of indented ap=
=prertices and servants in England , until such
slave shall return to his or her owner's service, or until
such slave shall be delivered by the due course of Law.
And farther, that no person shall knowingly aid,
countenance, harbour or conceal, any such deserting
slave; or, that a Law may be made declaring
that there is no Slavery in the Province; or such
other
other provision, respecting slaves, as this House
in its wisdom shall think proper.

Montreal 1st April 1799.

Ordered, that the said Petition do lay
upon the table for the consideration of the
Members.

House of Assembly - Lower Canada
Friday 18th April 1800.

A Petition of divers inhabitants of the
District of Montreal , whose names are
thereunto subscribed, was presented to the
House by Mr. Papineau, and the same was
brought up and read -

Setting forth - That doubts have lately been
entertained how far by the laws and statutes in
force in this Province there can be any property in
Negroes and Panis . From such doubts having effected
the interests of many of the Petitioners, they feel
themselves deeply impressed with the necessity of
having it determined by an act of the Legislature
that Slavery under certain modifications exits in
this Province, and at the same time of vesting in a
more effectual manner the property in slaves in
their masters, and of providing laws for the proper
regulation and government of such a class of men
as come within the description of slaves. That the
Petitioners humbly conceive that such an act
would be of great and general advantage to the
Province.

That the Petitioners beg leave to submit that an
Ordinance of Mr. Raudot, Intendant of Canada ,
dated 13th of April 1709, Enacts under the pleasure
of His Most Christian Majesty, "Que tous les Panis
“et negres qui out ètè achetès ou qui le serout par
“la suite, apartiendront en pleine proprieètè á “ceux qui en out fait ou qui en feront l'acquisition
“en qualitè d'Esclaves.” That this law which
was duly enregistered and published, and was
never altered or repealed the Petitioners humbly
conceive, was in full force as the Definitive Treat
of Peace, and under the 14th of His present Majesty,
makes
makes a part of the laws of this province.

That it appears in the opinion of the Petitioners
that since the Establishment of the African Company,
in the year 1661, the existence of slavery so far as it
respects Negroes, has been established and confirmed
in all His Majesty's Dominions in America . Free
liberty was given by a variety of statutes from that
time to the present day, to purchased slaves on the
Coasts of Africa and they, their children and
posterity, were declared the property of the purchasers,
and of those to whom they were afterwards sold.
That by the statute 30 Geo 3. C. 27. made after the
close of the late unhappy war, it is enacted, “That
“from and after the 1st day of August, 1790, if any
“person or persons, being subjects of the territories
"or countries belonging to the United States of
" America , shall come from thence, together with
“his or their family or families, to any of the
“Bahama or Bermuda or Somers Islands, or to
"any part of the Province of Quebec , or Nova Scotia ,
"or any of the Territories belonging to His Majesty
"in North America , for the purpose of residing
“and settling there, it shall be lawful for any
“such person or persons, having first obtained a
"licence for that purpose from the Governor, or in
“his absence from the Lieutenant Governor of the
“said Islands Colonies, or Plantations respectively
“to import into the same in British ships,
“owned by His Majesty's subjects, and navigated
“according to Law, and negroes, household
“furniture, utensils of husbandry, or cloathing
“free of duty.” And it is also enacted by the
said statute “ that all sales or bargains for
“the sale of any negro, household furniture
“utensils of husbandry, or cloathing so imported
“which shall be made within twelve
“calendar months after the importation of the
same

“same (except in case of the Bankruptcy or death of
“the owner thereof) shall be null and void to all intents
“and purposes whatsoever”

That if any doubt remained before the passing
of this act whether slavery really, under any modification,
existed in this Province, the Petitioners flatter
themselves this statute expressly recognizes its existence
in the same manner as it prevailed in all
His Majesty's Plantations in America before the
late war.

That the Petitioners can assure this House with
confidence, that many faithful and loyal subjects
of His Majesty, after exposing their lives in
his service, and sacrificing almost the whole property
they were possessed of in the late calamitous war,
came into this Province with their slaves under the
sacred promise held out to them in the last mentioned
statute, and from an idea lately gone abroad, that
slavery does not exist in this country, have found
that their slaves on whom was all their dependance
for support, have deserted them, and held them at
defiance. That as the Petitioners most ardently
desire to put the House in possession of all the facts
which belong to their case, they beg leave to inform
the House, that a Mr. Fraser, of their District, obtained
lately a Warrant from three Justices of the Peace to
commit to the House of correction his slave who had
deserted his service, (and who was one of three,
the only property he had saved from the ravages of
the late war, and his chief dependance for support
in his old age;) and that on a writ of Habeas
Corpus being sued out, the slave was discharged
by the Court of King's Bench, under an opinion
that the property was not sufficiently proved by
Mr. Fraser. The Petitioners they entertain
a high opinion for the authority of that Honorable
Court, cannot but remark that the evidence produced
produced on that occasion was, in their apprehension
the best which it was possible in any case to produce,
and that the Court in desiring more, have asked what
it would be impossible almost ever to obtain, and in
this manner have divested all the owners of slaves of
any property in them.

That is was stated in the course of the Judgment of the
Court, that the act of the 37th of His present Majesty,
C. 119 had repealed all the laws respecting slavery:
but this statute in the humble opinion of the petitioners
only goes the length to declare, that slaves shall
not in future be assessed for the payment of debt due
by their owners; it does not go so far as to divest such
owners of their property in their slaves, nor can it be
considered as tending to emancipate the slaves in
His Majesty's Plantations. That so far from this,
subsequent act still further recognize slavery to
exist, and encourage the importation of negroes
from the coast of Africa .

That the Petitioners are extremely sorry to detain
the House so long on this occasion, so interesting to
them, as many of the Petitioners have paid considerable
sums for slaves who have deserted their
service, and all of them are deeply sensible that
this class of men who are now let loose on society,
and live an idle and profligate life, may be tempted
to commit crimes, which it is the duty of every
citizen to endeavor to prevent.

That the petitioners under all the circumstances
which they have taken the liberty to state, cannot
but entertain a well grounded hope, that the House
will take this subject into their serious consideration,
and that they will pass such a Declaratory Act
as will give force and efficacy to the Law and statutes
which relate to this subject, and at the same
time that the House will by such means as they
think fit, secure to the owners a property in their
slaves

slaves, and make such further regulations for the
proper government of slaves as in their wisdom may
be thought expedient.

And that it may therefore please this House to
frame such an Act as will declare that slavery
exists under certain modifications in this Province,
and will completely vest the property in Panis and
Negroes in the owners thereof; and further, that this
House will provide such Laws and regulations for
the government of slaves as in the wisdom of the
House may be thought expedient.

On motion of Mr. Papineau, seconded by Mr.
Berthelot,

Ordered, that the said Petition, with the papers
thereunto annexed, and also the one
on the same subject, presented to this
House on the 19th April of last year;
be referred to a Committee of five
Members, whereof three shall form a
Quorum, to examine the matter
thereof, and report thereon with all
possible diligence; and that the said
Committee do meet in one of the
Committee Rooms to-morrow morning
at Ten O'Clock,

Ordered, that Messieurs Papineau, Grant,
Craigie, Cuthbert and Dumas do
compose the said Committee.

Monday,

Monday 21st April 1800.

Mr. Cuthbert from the Committee to whom was
referred the Petition of divers Citizens of the District
of Montreal relative to slaves, with the papers
thereunto annexed, as also the one on the same
subject presented to this House the 19th of April of the
last year, reported, that the Committee had examined
the contents and matter thereof, and had directed
him to report their opinion thereon to the House-
and he read the report in his place and afterwards
delivered it in at the table, where it was again
read by the Clerk; and the same is as follows;

Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Committee,
that there are reasonable grounds for
passing a Law to regulate the condition
of slaves, to limit the term of slavery,
and prevent the further introduction of
Slaves in this Province.

Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Committee,
that the Chairman more the House
that leave be given to the said Committee
to bring in a Bill accordingly.

On motion of Mr. Cuthbert , seconded by Mr. Berthelot,

Ordered, that the question of concurrence be
now separately put upon the resolutions
as reported.

Accordingly the said Resolutions were again
read, and the question of concurrence being
severally put thereon, they were agreed unto by
the House.

Resolved, that the said Committee have leave to
bring in a Bill for the purpoe aforesaid.

Wednesday.

Wednesday 30th April 1800.

Mr. Cuthbert , according to Order, presented a Bill,
“to regulate the condition of slaves, to limit the term
of slavery, and prevent the further introduction of
slaves in this Province", and the same was received
and read for the first time.

On Motion of Mr. Cuthbert , seconded by Mr.
Papineau,

Ordered, that the said Bill be read a second
time on Friday next.

Saturday 17th May 1800.

On motion of Mr. Lees, seconded by M. Craigie,

Resolved, that the Committee of the whole House
to whom was committed the Bill” For
regulating the condition of Slaves, to limit
the term of slavery and prevent the further
introduction of slaves into this province”
be revised, and that this House do now
resolve itself into the said Committee.

Accordingly the House resolved itself-into a
Committee of the whole House on the said Bill

Mr. Speaker left the Chair,

Mr. Berthelot took the Chair of the Committee;

Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair.

And

And Mr. Plantè moved, seconded by Mr. Berthelot,

That the House do adjourn till Monday next.
The House divided upon the question,
Years 6.
Nays 10.

Majority of four in the negative.

Several members having retired, the names of those
then present were taken down, and are as followeth,
viz,

Mr. Speaker,
Messieurs Plantè, Huot, Bedard, Perinault, Raby,
Martineau, Papineau, Fisher, Black and Dumas.

At half past seven O'Clock, P. Me. Mr.. Speaker adjourned
the House for want of a Quorum.

House of Asembly Lower Canada
Saturday 17th January 1801.

On motion of Mr. James Cuthbert, seconed by Mr.
Justice Panet ,

Ordered, that Mr. Cuthbert have leave to bring in a
Bill to regulate the condition of Slaves; to limit the
term of slavery, and prevent the further introduction
of slaves into this Province.

Mr. Cuthbert accordingly presented the said Bill
to the House and the same was received and read
for the first time.

Friday 23rd January 1801.

A Bill "To regulate the condition of slaves to limit
“the term of slavery and to prevent the further introduction
"of slaves into this Province," was according to order, read
for the second time.

On motion of Mr. James Cuthbert, seconded by
Mr. Lees

Ordered, That the said Bill be referred to a Committee
of the whole House.

Resolved, That this House will, upon Friday next, resolve
itself into a Committee of the whole House
on the said Bill

Monday 9th March 1801.

The Order of the day, for the House to resolve itself into
a Committee of the whole House, upon the Bill, to regulate
the condition of slaves, to limit the term of slavery, and
prevent the further introduction of slaves into this
Province, being read

The House resolved itself into the said Committee

Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Mr. Badgley took the chair of the Committee.

Mr. Speaker Speaker resumed the chair.

The within are the extrats from the Journals of the House of
Assembly for Lower Canada for the years 1792, 1799, 1800 and
1801, referred to in the answer of the Honble. William Badgley ,
to the eleventh interrogatory identified by his signature
and that of the undersigned Commissioner.

Montreal 5th February 1859.
W Badgley
Charles A. Terroux
Com

Province of Quebec
District of Montreal

Court of Common Pleas
Tuesday the Eighteenth day of March, one
thouand seven hundred and eighty-eight
Present

The Honorable Hertel DeRouville
Edward Southouse, Esquires.

The Plaintiff having in and by his declaration
demanded of the Defendants the sum of One
hundred pounds, currency, damages, or that
the Defendants do deliver up to the plaintiff
two negro Wenches, the one named Silvia
Jane , the other Ruth Jane , which said
Negro Wenches the Defendants, for and in consideration
of the sum of Fifty pounds, Currency,
to them paid by Mary Jacobs , did on the fourth
day of December, one thouand seven hundred
and eighty five, by a deed passed before John
Gerbrand Beek, Notary, sell and transfer to the
said Mary Jacobs , to hold and possess, during
their natural lives; The Court having seen
the
the Original Summons with the Sheriff's
return duly certified, and having taken into
consideration the Default made by the Defendants
on the tenth day of March, instant, and
the Defendants having been again duly called,
this day, and not appearing in person nor
by attorney, it is Ordered that the Defendants
do forthwith deliver up the said Negro Wenches,
and on default thereof that the said Defendants
be condemned to pay to the plaintiff, in his quality
aforeaid, the sum of Fifty pounds, currency,
with costs of suit.

We, Samuel Wentworth Monk , William
Craigie Holmes Coffin and Louis Joseph
Patineau, Joint Prothonotary, in the city and
District of Montreal , of Her Majesty's Superior
Court for Lower Canada , and keeper as well of
the Archives of the said Court as of the archives
of the former respective Courts of Common Pleas
and King's Bench in and for the said district of
Montreal , do hereby certify the foregoing to be a
true Copy of the Judgment rendered in the above
cause and entered in the Register of the said Court
of Common Pleas for the said district of Montreal .
Given under Our Official signature
and the seal of the said superior Court for
Lower Canada , at the City of Montreal ,
in the Province of Canada , the third
day

day of February in the year of our Lord,
one thousand eight hundred and fifty-
nine.

Monk Coffin & Patineau
Proth

No 5
Court of Common
Pleas

Copy of Judgment

Province de Quebec
District de Montreal

Cour des Plaidoyers Communs
le troisieme de Quillet
Mil Sept Cent quatre vingh huit

Les Honerables Jean Fraser
Hertel de Rouerille
et Edouard Southouse
Ecuires
Juges

Entre Joseph Poire, comparant par Mr.
Walker , son avocat, demondeur, dime part,
et Jean LaGord, comparant par Mr. Ross,
avocat du defdr, d'autre part. Apres que
Mr. Walker , pour le demandeur a conclu
par sa declaration tendante pour les
raisons y Contenues, aux fins de Condamnation
contre le defendeur au paiement
de la Somme de quarante Sept livres
du Chelins, pour le prix d'un negre libre
que le dit defendeur lui a vendu, et pour dommages et frais qui ont resulte de
cette vente, avec interets ci dessus.

Mr. Ross a presente pous le
un cerit de defenses, par lequel il conclut
conclut les raisons y contenues a ce
que la demandeur dort renvote de
l'action avec depens, d'antant que dans
la vende du negre en question, il ne
lui a donne d'autre assurance que ce
qui est exprime en l'ache du sept
Septembre desmer, que d'ailleurs les
Commissaires n'avorent ausun droit,
pouvors ni autorite de prendre Commissaires
ni determinere aucuns droits de
propriete, et que d'autant que le dit
LaGord n'etort ponir partie en la dite
Sentence qui ils ont rendue, il ne peut
en Souffier ni etre affecte; a quoi Mr
Walker a replique par son ecrit que
nonobstart tontes les raisons donnes par
le defendeur, il dont etre tenu a lui
rembourser l'argent qui il lui a paye
pous le dit negre, ensemble les frais
et dommages qu'il a souffers par
cette vente frauduleuse, laquelle il
navoit aucun droit de faire pour quoi
presiste en les Conclusions

Parties Oires, les pieces produites
par les parties et leurs debats respectiss
et tont Considere, La Cour Condamme
le defendeur a payes au demandeur la
somme de trenre sept livres du Chelins
du Cours actuel, pous le prix du dit
negre, et remoye le demandeur au
Chef des dommages, aux interets de la
dite somme a comprer du

Novembre de mer, jous dela demande,
juequia l'astuel pareineut et aux depens

We, Samuel Wentworth
Monk , William Craigie Holmes Coffin
and Louis Joseph Amedee Papincau,
Joint Prothonotary in the City and district
of Montreal of Her Majesty's Superior
Court for Lower Canada , and keeper as well
of the Archives of the said Court as of the
archives of the former respective Courts of
Common pleas and King's Bench in and for
the said district of Montreal , do hereby
certify the foregoing to be a true copy of
the Judgment rendered in the above Cause
and entered in the Register of the said
Court of Common pleas for the said district
of Montreal .

Given under our official signature
and the seal of the said Superior
Court for Lower Canada , at the
City of Montreal in the Province
of Canada , the third day of
february in the year of our
Lord One thousand eight hundred
and fifty nine.
Monk , Coffin & Papincau
Proth

Cour de Plaidoyers
Communs

Joseph Poire
Demandeur
vs
Jean Lagord
Defendeur

Copie de Jugement

Court of Common Pleas

Copy of Judgment

Province of Quebec
District

Court of Common Pleas
Tuesday the Twentieth day of January, one
thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine
Present

The Honorable John Fraser
The Honorable H. DeRouville.
Esquires

The Court
having considered the pleadings,
Evidences and Exhibits filed in this cause, and
having fully heard the parties by their respective
Counsel, it is Ordered and adjudged that the
plaintiff do recover of the Defendant, the sum of
sixty pounds current money, being the principal
sum paid by him to the Defendant for the
negro mentioned in his Declaration, with
Interest on the said sum from the fourth day
of July last until actual payment and
costs of suit.

We, Samuel Wentworth Monk , William
Craigie Holmes Coffin and Louis Joseph
Amedeè Papineau, joint Prothonotary in
the City and District of Montreal , of Her Majesty's Superior Court for Lower Canada , and
Keeper
keeper as well of the archives of the said Court, as
of the archives of the former respective Courts of Common
pleas and King's Bench in and for the said
district of Montreal , do hereby certify the foregoing
to be a true copy of the Judgment rendered in
the above cause and entered in the Register of the
said Court of Common Pleas for the said district
of Montreal .

Given under Our Official signature
and the Seal of the said Superior Court
for Lower Canada , at the City of
Montreal , in the Province of Canada
the third day of February, in the year
of Our Lord, one thousand Eight hundred
and fifty nine.
Monk , Coffin & Papineau
Proth

Province of Lower Canada
District of Montreal

Court of King's Bench
Monday the Eighteenth day of february, one
thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine.
Present

The Honorable Chief Justice Monk
Mr. Justice Walker
Mr. Justice Panet
Mr. Justice Ogden

No 52

Defendant and
the said Thomas John Sullivan
and Incidental plaintiff
the said Jerris George Turner, and Mary
Blancy , Incidental Defendants
and
Manuel Allen a black-man of the City
of Montreal , labourer,
Intervening Party
The Court having heard the parties by their
respective
respective counsel, as well upon the principal as
incidental demand, and duly considered the
evidence of record; and in as much as the Plaintiffs
have shown title or right to transfer and sell
the property claimed in Manuel , a negro man,
to the defendant, and that the defendant is not in
possession of the said Manuel so convenanted to
be sold, nor can the defendant upon the evidence
adduced sustain a right to the same, It is
considered that the plaintiffs be dismissed of
their action and demand with Costs to the
defendant. And in as much as it appears
that Mary Blancy , one of the plaintiffs, was duly
separated from her husband, and thereafter had taken
and received from the defendant Thomas John
Sullivan the sum of Eighteen pounds in part
payment in the sale of the said Manuel , and
whom she had no right to sell, and that the defendant
hath not been legally maintained in a property
so undertaken to be transfered and conveged;
It is further considered that the said Mary
Blancy to pay to the said Thomas Sullivan,
the Incidental Plaintiff in this cause the sum of
Eighteen pounds with costs upon the incidental
demand. And the intervention of the said
Manuel Allen is dismissed, each party to
pay their own Costs.

We Samuel Wentworth Monk , William
Craigie Holmes Coffin and Louis Joseph
Amedee

Amedeè Papineau,, Joint Prothonotary, in the
city and district of Montreal , of Her Majesty's
Superior Court for Lower Canada and keeper as
well of the archives of the said Court, as of the archives
of the former respective Courts of Common Pleas and
King's Bench in and for the said district of Montreal ,
do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true Copy
of the Judgment rendered in the above cause and
entered in the Register of the said Court of King's
Bench for the said District of Montreal .

Given under our official signature and
the seal of the said Superior Court for Lower
Canada , at the City of Montreal , in the
Province of Canada , the third day of
February, in the year of our Lord, one
thousand eight hundred and fifty
nine.
Monk Coffin & Papineau
Proth

No 52
King's Bench

and
Manuel Allen

Copy of Judgment

Cour des Plaidoyers
Communs
District de Montreal

Defendeur
Copie de Jugement

Province du Bas Canada
Distruct de Montreal

Cour dea Plaidoyes Communs
vendredi le vingt huitieme jour
de fevrier, mil sept cent quatre
vingt quatorze
Presens

Les Honorables Jenkins et
J. Ant Panet, Ecuiers

La Requete du
demandeur expose que le
Jugement de la Cour d'Appel du 19 Juillet 1793, a envoye
la procedure, a fin qu'il soit fait en
cette Cour tel que Loi et Justice
peuvent requerer, et conclut qu'un jour
soit fixe pour recevoir leur dence et lui
accorder les conclusions de sa declaration
avec depens.

La response du defendeur dit,
qu'il ny a maintenant aucune contestation
ou issue soit en loi ou en fait
devant cette Cour, pourquoi conclut, qu'il
lui soit allerie de paiser contre la
declaration et que la Requete du
demandeur soit renvoyee avec depens.La
La perlique pour la Requete
dit, qu'il y a Contestation ou issue
suffisante pour recevoir l'evidence, et
persiste en sa Requete avec depens.

L'action est personnelle sur
un quasi delit, d'avoir avec violence
amene et detenue Catherine Coll,
femme du demandeur et divers meubles
valant cinquarte livres, concluant a
deux mille livres de dommages, interets
et depens.

Le defendeur a produit ce qu'il
definit etre fins de non recevoir ou
Exceptions peremptoires, tendant a ce
que l'action ne soit pas recevable, par
ce que, Catherine Coll, allegeree etre
la femme du demandeur ou telle quelle
soit nommee on Connue, etoit du
quasi- delit, l'esclave du defendeur,
l'ayant legalement achetee et ne
layant point vendue, emancipee ni
dechargee; qu'etant ainsi son esclave,
le defendeur avoit droit de la corriger,
transportes et disposer comme il a
fait d'elle et ses meubles; ce que
lui defendeus offre de prouver;
Pourquoi il conclut, qu'il soit juge si
le demandeur devroit avoir on maintenir
son ation, et qu'il en soit debonte
avec depens.

Les Reponses du demandeur,
disent que la dite Catherine Coll,
lors du quasi delit, etoit sa femme;
qu'en loi du Pays elle n'etoit pas
l'esclave

l'esclave du defendeur, et que les
muebles appartenoient au demandeur,
enfin, lui demandeur conclut a
l'Enquete du tout par Jures.

Les repliques du defendeur pour
soutenir sea fins de non proceder les
repetent, et afoutent que la conclusion
a une enquetre par Jures est en loi
erronnee, et devoit avoir ete pour
enquetre par la Cour; Pourquoi il
demande les conclusions de sa dite
exception avec depens.

La Demandeur a droit de maintenir
son action personnelle, s'il est le
mari legitime de la femme, mais la
contestation est equivoquement ouverte
par le defendeur, en ce que la vraie
cause de sa seule fin de non recevoir
ne contient pas une denegation positive
que il demandeur soit le mari legitime
de Catherine Coll: Le Defendeur s'est
contente de dise en forme de discours,
ou d'admettre meme par hypothese,
que quoiquelle soit alleguee etre
femme du demandeur ou telle quelle
puisse etre nommee ou Connue, elle
etoit lors du quasi delit ou depuis,
l'esclave de lui defendeur. C'etoit
admettre au lieu de mer le mariage
allegue par le demandeur, puisque
le defendeur dans le Surplus de Les
repinses a la seule fin de non recevoir,
plaide par des defenses au merite de
l'action
l'action, savoir, que la feme est
son esclave, et les meubles sa
propriete, et par ses repliques
conclut contre l'Enquete par Jures,
mais admet l'enquetre par la Cour,
Enquete que la Cour n'avoit competence
de faire que de droit de propriete
de l'esclave et des meubles, et
en consequence il persistoit dans
les Conclusions de son Exception
comme sur un ponit de droit,
avec depens.

En effet par l'ordinance de 1667, tit: 5. art. 5. regloit que dans
les defenses seront employees les fines
de non recevoir, millite des Exploits
ou autres Exceptions peremptores, si
aucunes y a pour etre prealablement
fait droit. Mais les formes ou
regles de proceder etorent Changees
avant cette action par la Cour, en
vertu de l'ordonnance Legislative de
la vingh Septieme annee, Chap. 4, par
les regles du 13 Septembre 1787,
enregistrees en cette Cour, dont l'article
9 separe les Exceptions des defendes,
ordonnant defiler toutes Exceptions
d'aucune expece le jour apres le
rapport de l'assignation, et les
defenses selon l'article huit, dand trois
jours

Le Demandeur par ses reponses aux
fins de non proceder ne s'est borne a
l'admission ou hypothese du mariage,
ou na pas exige, qu'a cet egard
le

le defendeur s'expliquat mieux, il a
souten que Catherine Coll etoit sa
femme, il a nie l'esclavage et la
propriete et conclu a ce que du tout il fut fait enquete par des Jures. Le
defendeur offroit de prouver l'esclavage et la propriete par enquete en Cour.
Lespece d'une telle contestation exigeoit
done au desir des deux parties
selon leur offre.

1. Que le demandeur prouvant le mariage pour detruire la Seule
fin de non recevoir.

Que le defendeur prouveant
l'eslavage qui constituesoit sa
propriete alleguee pour defenses
au merite de Sa Justification.

Les deux points sont deux questions
purement de droit dans la maniere
que les parties offrent de les etablir, ce ne pouvant etre des questions de
fait, cas les loix de cette Province n'admettent point de mariage legitime
ni d'esclavage de fait, sans titres
authentiques et loiz expresses.

La difficulte de proceder etoit
dond contre le demandeur qui avoit
erronement conclu a faire prouver par
Jures le mariage et l'esclavage, dont
de la Cour; sar l'ordonnance & Legislative de la 25eme annee Cess. 2 art 9
n'attribue la Competence aux Jures
quen
qu'en actions de torts personels,
propres a convertir en dommmages, tant
pour les determiner les matieres de faits
en telle Cause que pour fixer le
quantum des dommages des torts
personels.

Les sens de cetter ordonnance
n'est pas de Changer les anciennes
loux de propriete ni de actions &
personnelles. sur quasi delit quant
au droit ou la loi; ni de renverser
la competence et le devoir des Juges
de decider des titres de propriete
de l'etat legal depersonnes et des
droits et actions; l'exception n'est
en cette cause que pour l'evidence des
faits resultant des torts personnels,
pour lesquels faits, les jures sont
competents en cette Province.

La question d'etat definie en
droit etoit sur le mariage; c'est
une question prejudicielle a l'action
en cette Cause; car le demandeur
s'il ne le prouve pas legalement
son action tombe. Cette question
d'etat etant pure de droit telle
qu'offerre, etoit de la Competence de
la Cour quoiqu'une question d'etat
peut etre en dertains cas proposee,
premierement en droit, comme le
mariage, et secondement en fait,
comme l'identite de la personne, et
tres

tres souvent un titre d'etat ou de
propriete pour une question de droit,
exige de preuve testimoniale sur
la verite du titre, mais tout cela
est de la Competence de la Cour
en cette Province Si le fait a proiver
n'est pas delui des torts personnels

Le Jugement d'appel et le
tout considere apres avoir entendu
les parties par leurs avocats et
delibere sur la requete du demdr
pour une Enquete devant la Cour,
la reponse pour plaider de Novo
et la Replique a la dite reponse; Consiterant l'exception on fin de
non recevoir defa deboutee, et les
points en Contestation ou issue mal
lies, La Cour Ordonne que le defendeur fasse fiter ses reponses
de novo a la declaration dans les
de lois des reles de pratique &
enregistrees entre les parties, quant
a tout ce qui a ete fait en cette
Cour depuis l'entree de la declaration

We Samuel Wentworth Monk ,
William Craigie Holmes Coffin and
Louis Joseph Amedee Papineau,
joint Prothonotary in the City and
district of Montreal id Her Majesty's
Superior court for Lower Canada and keeper as well of the archives of
the
the said Court as of the archives of
the former respective courts of Common
pleas and King's Bench in and for
the said district of Montreal , do
hereby certify the foregoing to be a
true copy of the Judgment rendered
in the above cause and entered in
the Register of the said Court of Common pleas for the said district of
Monreal.

Given under our Official
Signature and the seal of
the said Superior Court for
Lower Canada at the City
of Montreal in the Province of
Canada , the third day of
February in the year of Our
Lord, one thousand eight
hundred and fifty nine.

Monk , Coffin, & Papineau
Proth

Province of Lower Canada
District of Montreal

Court of King's Bench
Tuesday the Eighteenth day of
february One thousand eight hundred.
Present
The Chief Justice
Mr. Justice Panet
Mr. Justice Ogden

No. 113

The Court having
heard Mr Ker, of Counsel
for James Fraser ,
claiming property to
Robin , alias Robert
a blackman, now
confined under a
warrant annexed to
the writ of habeas corpus, and Mr. Perry ,
on the part of the said Robin alias
Robert , and having seen the affidavits
produced by the said James Fraser :
It is considered that the said
Robin alias Robert , be discharged
from his confinement under the said
warrant

We Samuel Wentworth
Monk , William Craigie Holmes Coffin and Louis Joseph Amedee Paineau,
Joint Prothonotary in the City and district
of Montreal of Her Majesty's Superior Court for
Lower Canada , and keeper as well of
the archives of the said Court as of the
archives of the former respective
Courts of Common pleas and King's Bench
in and for the said district of Montreal ,
do hereby certify the foregoing to be a
true copy of the Judgment rendered in
the above cause and entered in the
Register of the said Court of King's Bench
for the said district of Montreal .

Given under our official signature
and the seal of the said Superior
Court for Lower Canada , at the
City of Montreal , in the Province
of Canada , the third day of
february in the year of Our
Lord one thousand eight hundred
& fifty nine.

(One marginal note approved)

Monk , Coffin & Papineau
Proth

1859

clk

Montreal No 113

Dominus Rex
on application of
Robin alias Robert
for a writ of
Habeas Corpus

vs James Fraser Copy of Judgement 25.00

Opened and
14 1859 S rice
Clk

The State of Missouri --- County of St. Louis : ss.To Albert Dupavillon
Greeting:

You are hereby commanded, that, setting aside all manner of excuse and delay'
you appear before our St. Louis Circuit Court , at the City of St. Louis , on
the First day of March 1859 then and
there to testify, and the truth to say in a certain cause pending in said Court'
wherein Charlotte (of color)
plaintiff and Chouteau is
defendant on the part of the Plaintiff
and herein you are in no wise to fail.

Witness, Stephen Rice, Clerk of our said Court, with the
seal thereof hereto affixed, at office, in the City of St. Louis ,
this 26th day of February in the
year of our Lord eighteen hundred and fifty-nine
S Rice Clerk.

Served M S Cerre Shf
Fee .50

127

Albert Dupavillon
in Recorder's
office

The State of Missouri --- County of St. Louis : ss. To Dr. L. C. Birshmere
Greeting:

You are hereby commanded, that, setting aside all manner of excuse and delay'
you appear before our St. Louis Circuit Court , at the City of St. Louis , on
the First day of March 1859 then and
there to testify, and the truth to say in a certain cause pending in said Court'
wherein Charlotte (of color)
plaintiff and G. S. Chouteau
defendant on the part of the Plaintiff
and herein you are in no wise to fail.

Witness, Stephen Rice, Clerk of our said Court, with the
seal thereof hereto affixed, at office, in the City of St. Louis ,
this 28th day of February in the
year of our Lord eighteen hundred and fifty-nine
S Rice Clerk.

Served M S Cerre Shf
Fee .50

127-13

Dr. L. C. Birchmere

In the St Louis Circuit Court .

Gabriel S. Chouteau comes
& says that a jury selected from the jury list in the hand
of the jury commssioner will not be free from the prejudice,
which preclude a fair trial of a cause like the present
that a jury collected from the City will necessarily
include many who from prejudices of brith and education
are not a fair jury nor unprejudiced jury
for the determination of the issues in this cause
and that he cannot safely go to trial without the
granting to him of a special writ of venire facia
for the summoning of a jury from the county on trade
of the city, that he cannot say that the minds of the
people & juries within the city are prejudiced against
himself: but that he verily belive, that they are
prejudiced against his side of the issue presented
in the above entitled cause and that the cause
cannot be fairly tried by a jury selected as the
general law provider.

Wherefore he prays that the Court
here will make an order directing a special
venire to issue to the sheriff. to summon a jury
of persons residing on the county on trade of the
City of St Louis . to try the issue in the above
cause cause.

S. Chouteau Sworn & subscribed
to before me this
1st March 1859S. Rice Gabriel S. Chouteau

AAffidavit for
Special Venire
Gantt

Filed March 1st
1859S Rice
Clk Act 662 of 1857
change of venire law

Be it remembered that on the
first of March 1859 the
defendant filed his affidavit
in the words and figures following (here insert
it) and moved the Court here to grant to
him a special venire facia for the summoning
of a jury in said cause from the County outside
of the City of St Louis which motion the
Court held under advisement until this day
the third day of March 1859 and then overruled
the same. To the overruling of which, motion
the said defendant at the time excepted
& presented this bill of exceptions & prayed
that it be signed by the Court here, which is
done.

J R Lackland Judge

Bill of Exceptions
for defendants

Filed March 3
1859S Rice clk

The defendant comes and
moves the court here to set aside
the verdict in this cause rendered & grant him
a new trial for the following reasons.

1. Because the Court improperly refused
a special venire. as asked for by defendant

2. Because the Court admitted illegal &
improper evidence to the jury

3 Because the Court refused legal & proper
instructions asked for by defendant

4 Because the Court gave illegal and improper
instructions to the jury

5 Because the finding of the jury
is against the instructions of the Court

6 Because the finding of the jury
is against law

7 Because the finding of the jury
is against evidence.

Tho. T. Gantt p. d.

Mo reasons
for a new trial
Thos . Gantt
p.d.

Filed March 12
1859
S Rice Clk

St.Louis , March 12, 1859.

We, the Jury in the case of
Charlotte versus Chouteau , find
for the plaintiff
that the said Charlotte is free

W.A.McDonald
Foreman

Refused
12 March 1859