State of Missouri
County of St Louis
SSIn the St Louis Circuit Court
September Term 1859

of Louisa alias Louisa Lewis
and of her minor son George .

To the Hon Samuel M. Breckinridge

Judge of the St Louis Circuit Court .
Your petitioner Louisa alias Louisa Lewis , respectfully
prays of your Honor, for leave to sue as a poor person,
in order to establish the right of herself and of her
minor son George to freedom and in support thereof
alleges the following reasons:

That she is the daughter of one Lizzie alias Elizabeth
Dickson, now deceased

1st That said Elizabeth alias Lizzie , being then a free
person of color, purchased your petitioner for the purpose
and on the condition that she should be free-

2nd That in as much as a free person of color cannot
hold a slave in the State of Missouri , that the purchased
of petitioner by her Mother operated as a deed of manu
mission

3rd That subsequently to her purchase of peitioner
Lizzie alias Elizabeth Dickson emancipated her

4th That previous to the death of the said Lizzie
alias Elizabeth Dickson, and after her purchased by
her of your petitioner, your petitioner and her child
with the knowledge and consent of the said Lizzie
alias Elizabeth Dickson, acted as a free person
of color and contracted as such with other persons.
and this during the period of seventeen years.
Your peitioner further represents that
her said son George was bought born in this
City about a year three years after the emanci
pation of your petitioner, is now about fourteen
years old & has always with the knowledge
& consent of said Lizzie alias Elizabeth
Dickson been considered a free person
and so conducted himself

Wherefore your petitioner prays the privilege
of suing as a poor person for the freedom
of herself and of her child, and for the usual orders
by the Statute in such cases made and provided
against Henry N. Hart Esq,, who as the Adminis
trator of her Mother the said Lizzie alias Elizabeth
Dickson claims the possession of your petitioner
and of her child-

her
Louisa mark
alias Louisa Lewis Witness John Farish

The said Louisa alias Louisa Lewis files her petition and upon consid
eration thereof, it is

ordered by the Court that the said petitioner Louisa
alias Louisa Lewis , have be allowed to sue on giving
security satisfactorily to the Clerk, for all costs
that may for the freedom of herself and of

her child George , on giving security that
satisfactorily to the Clerk, for all costs that
may be adjudged against her, and further that they have
reasonable liberty to attend their counsel,
and the Court as occasion may require
that they be not removed out of the jurisdiction
of this Court, and that be not subject to any,
severity on account of their application
for freedom-

Given under my hand this 18th
day of October A.D. 1859S WBreckinridge Judge

Lousia-

In the matter of
the application
of
Louisa alias Louisa Lewis
& her minor son George -

Filed Oct 18th 1859S Rice Clk

Order granted 29 p 116.

In the St Louis Circuit Court

To the February Term AD 1859
I hereby agree to be liable for all costs
which may accrue in the foregoing
action which may be adjudged against
plaintiff, I hereby security for
plaintiff for the cost,

Given under my hand this 20th day
of October AD 1859-Johnston

Circuit Court

Louisa (of color)
vs
Henry N. Hart Admr

Bond for costs

In St Louis Circuit
Court
St Louis County

Plaintiff by H.C. Sharp her Attorney
states that defendant is Administrator
of Lizzie alias Elizabeth Dickson her
mother now deceased .

That defendant as such Administrator
claims the possession of plaintiff and of
plaintiff's child a minor son named George
as slaves of the estate of said Lizzie alias
Elizabeth Dickson-

Plaintiff further states, that she was purcha
sed by her Mother the said Lizzie on the condition
that she should be emancipated, and that
subsequently she was emancipated
by defend the said Lizzie

Plaintiff further states that for some seven

teen years have elapsed since her
emancipation and during all that
period up to and at the time of the decease
of her mother, she plaintiff and her child
were always considered and regarded as
free persons, and as such conducted them
selves and all this with the knowledge
and consent of the Mother the
said Lizzie alias Elizabeth Dickson.

Plaintiff further states that her said
son George was born subsequent to
the date of plaintiff's emancipation by her Mother.

Plaintiff therefore prays judgment of the
freedom of herself and of her son George
and for one cent damages

A.J.P. Garesche. with
F.C.Sharp Atty for
Plff

Louisa Lewis plaintiff makes oath and
says that the above petition and matters
as therein stated, she believes to be true

her Lousia alias Louisa Lewis
markSworn to and subscribed before me the 20th day of
October 1859Philip McDonald
Justice of the Peace

Louisa alas Louisa Lewis
of color
vs
Henry N. Hart

Filed Oct 21st 1859S Rice Clk $ 300 filed byAtty

State of Missorui,
County of St. Louis ,
SS.To The Sheriff of St. Louis County—Greeting:

We command you to summon Henry N . Hart
to appear
before the Judge of our Circuit Court , on the first day of the next Term thereof, to be
held in the City of St. Louis , within and for the County of St. Louis , on the
First Monday of February next, then and there to answer the
complaint of Louisa alias Louisa Lewis
as set forth in the annexed petition: and have you then there and this writ.

Witness, Stephen Rice, Clerk of our said Court,
with the Seal thereof hereto affixed, at office, in the City of
St. Louis , this 21st day of Oct
in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and fifty - nineS Rice Clerk.

I acknowledge myself bound for all costs that may accrue in the case of
against
Witness my hand and seal, at St. Louis , this day of 185

Feby TJury & trial 30 p 31 trial 30p32. April 27 1860 trial finished &
verdict for pltff Mo for a new trial filed 30p 33 Mo for 30p 90
Afft filed appeal allowed 30p 112.

No 12 St. Louis Circuit Court .
February Term 1860

Louisa alias Louisa Lewis
vs
Henry N Hart
Summons

Pet. for freedom

Garesche & Sharp

Issued 21st of October 1859S Rice Clerk Security for Costs.
1.00 Copies due Clerk. 3.00 Atty paid

Excuted this writ in St. Louis County this
7th Day of November 1859, by delivering a copy
of this writ and Petition as furnished by the Clerk
to Henry N . Hart , the within named Defendants

M. S. Cerre SheriffBy J . A . Guion , Deputy Fee $ 1.00

No 12 Circuit Court
February Term 1860

Louisa alias Louisa Lewis
vs
Henry A Hart

Defts answer

Filed Feby 9 1860S Rice ClkH N Hart
inproper

In St Louis Circuit Court
February Term 1860
St Louis County SS.

Defendant in answer to plaintiff petitions, admits
states, that it is true as alleged by plaintiff in her petition
that he defendant is administrator of the Estate of Elizbeth
Dickson deceased, and that he such administrator
claims the prossession of plaintiff and of plaintiffs child
Geroge as slaves of said Estate of Elizabeth Dickson decea
sed, Defendant further answering states That he has no
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to whether or not the plaintiff was purchased by her
mother Elizabeth Dickson on the condition that she should
be emancipated or that she was subsequently eman
cipated by the said Elizabeth Dickson as alleged. Defen

dant further says that He has no knowledge or informat

tion sufficient to form a belief whether or not 17 years
have elapsed since her plaintiffs emancipation, or whe
ther during all that period, and up to the time of the
disease of her Mother she plaintiff and her child were
always considered and regarded as free persons and
as such conducted themselves, or whether this was
with the knowledge and consent of the Mother, the said
Elisabeth Dickson, of all of which defendant asks for
proof, Nor has defendant any knowledge or infor
mation sufficient to form a belief as to whether
or not her said son George was born subsequent

to the date of plaintiffs alleged emancipation by her
Mother. Defendant for further answer says, that
said Plaintiff is not entitled to her freedom or the
freedom of her son George , and that they are legally
& properly Slaves belonging to the Estate of Elisabeth
Dickson or Dickenson deceasers, Wherefore defendant
prays that the plaintiff is not entitled to any judgt
of any kind, whatever against him & prays Judgment

Henry N Hart
in proper

State of Missouri
County of St Louis
SS

Henry N Hart deft
makes oath and says that he believes the fore
going answer and the matters as therein stated
are true

Henry N Hart Sworn to and subscribed
before me this Ninth day
of February AD 1860Herman A.Haeussler
Notary Public

Circuit Court

The Deft. moves the
Court for a new trial

1st Because The verdict is against law

2 The verdict is agst evidence

3 The Court on his ownmotion
unproperly instructed the jury

4 The Court refused proper
instructions asked by Deft.

5th The Court admitted im
proper and illegal evidence to go to the jury

L M Shreve
Atty Deft.

No12 April T.

Louisa Lewis
vs
Hy N Hart
Ad.

Mo. New Trial

File April 27 1860S Rice Clk

L M Shreve agent
of Defendant makes oath and
says the appeal in the above
cause is not made for vexation
or delay but because affiant
believes that applicant is
acquired by the judgment
and decision of the court

L M Shreve Sworn to and subscribed
before me this 20th June
A D 1860S Rice Clk

Afft

Filed June 20 1860S Rice Clk

Louisa Lewis
vs
Henry N. Hart

Bill exceptions
filed

Filed June 21 1860S Rice Clk

Louisa Lewis - Plaintiff
against
Henry N Hart Defendant
St Louis Circuit Court

Be it remembered that on the trial
of this cause plaintiff introduced
as a witness George W . who
testified as follows-

I know Louisa (plaintiff) have
known her for twelve years I think
in St Louis . think she has lived all
that time here - Dont know of
her living Know her mother
LizzeDickson - she died last summer
I think - for many years past Louisa
has lived on an alley between &
Biddle and 12th & 13th Streets - I think
keeping house for herself. her Mother
did not live with her never did to
my knowledge

Question - In what way did plaintiff
live and act during her mothers
life objected to by defendant over
ruled

Answ - for the last five or six years
she has lived in that alley alone &
managed her own affairs she
did washing there - I dont know
for whom. I saw her often on street with
baskets of clottins

Plaintiffs mother lived on 6th street
between OFallon&, plaintiff
had her son living withher, dont
know his name but think it is
George - know the boyvery well his
color is nearly white - don't of my own
knowledge know of that boy going
to school - I know plaintiff was at
Chicago - I think in 1856 to but not
positive as to the year do not know
howlong she remained there her husband
lived at Chicago at this time - Knew
she went & Knew her after her return
She was two or three months ago
livingwhere I spoke of before this
her mothers death. Dont know that
I ever saw her & her mother together more
than once or twice- When plaintiff
returned from Chicago her husband did
not return with her I knew her mother
I knew her twelve or thirteen years
She lived by herself & owned I think the
house she lived and died in

CrossExamined I only know of plaintiff
going to Chicago - the purpose of going
I only learned from her & her mother

John Hon.for plaintiff certified -
Ihaveknown plaintiff ten years.
did not know hermother- plaintiff
has lived here all the time I have
known her. on ally I think between
12th & 13th streets - part of the time she
had a husband who belonged to me & a
son named George . she washed for
different persons on her own account
she went to Chicago - she went to see
her husband. I knew her husband
whom I freed - I knew of a corres
pondence between them. letter passed
thro my hand. I was Mayor of this
City at the time - plaintiff applied to
me for a pass to the
I as Mayor had given her
a pass as a free woman to live in
this city - I also gave her a pass as a
free person to crossthewhen
she got this passI required a writing
from her mother. she brought it
& I then gaveher the pass as a
free person. her husband is dead
after plaintiffs return from Chicago
she lived where she now lives with her
son- she has money on deposit
I knew of some $ 500 or $ 600. I knew
of her having deposit account at the
Bactmans savings Institution >supplied>her
deposits now in her own name
I have made deposits for her. all
her transactions I have known were
in her ownname - witness identifies
plaintiff present in court

CrossExamined

What I have stated is my any
of knowledge that this woman is free

witness testified
I have known plaintiff between 8 &
9 years - knew her Mother Lizzie Dickson
have known her 18 or 19 years - she is
dead - she died in between 10th & 11th
streets - she owned the house it now in
leased ground. I suppose she owned the
property she about her - she died
July 4th 1859. plaintiff livedon an
alley - I never saw any one living with
her but her son George and her husband.
I saw George going to school - he went to
common school with white children. Dont
think I ever saw plintiffs mother at
her homenor plff at her mothers house
plaintiff supported herself & child - she
worked hard - washedforherself

her husbands name nor Lewis
I know when Lewis went to Chicago-

& when plaintiff went there
18 months or two years ago. cant tell
how long she was gone there - she camelb/> back after her husband died there
& during all the time I have know her
she worked for herself & supported herself -
I knew her mother. did not know whether
she was a slave a not she passed as a free
woman - She lived many years on
and on 6th streets. I often saw her in the
riding out - from 6th she
moved to housewhere after a
month or two she died

Question- State whether during the life time
of plffs mother you heard her say to plff anything
as to whether plff wasfree or slave
objected to overruled & exception

Answer - I did about 3weeksbefore she
died hear her mother say that Louisa & her
son George were free at her death
I met her at market & asked her what
was going to dowith plff & George - she was
at market seemed nervous - she said they
werefree at her death. she said she was
then livingwith her daughter until she
could get possession of her house
I was in her house which I forgot before
I made the shroudJuly 4th Louisa came
for me to do it - plffs mother said she
& her child should neverserve any body
after her death - This was at the corner
of Riddle street & alley - I asked her
whatshe was going to do with Louisa &
George when she died. she said they were
free at her death - she said nothing about
her property - I asked her nothing about
it. she lived with Louisa 6 or 7 weeks
I think & then she moved to her own
house. plff still lives at same house
& lived there all the time except when
she was in Chicago -

Cross Examined

Lizzie certainly said Louisa & her
child should be free at her death.

Lucinda Miles - testified

I reside on 13th street between &
Riddle streets & have known Louisa
for 8 or 9 years. she lives in the
with me - I knew her mother 4 or 5 years.
she lived on 6th street & between between
10th & 11th strrets & there died - plff was
married. I know her child George -
plaintiff lived out of this state with

her husband at Chicagoabouta
year and a half ago.- her husband
died at Chicago. she then came back
& lived & washed&worked where & as she had
lived before - plffs mother boarded with
her about a month before she got
her house on Wash Street.- her mother
told me Louisa & her child should be free
at her death. This was while she boarded
with plaintiff - plaintiff rentedhouse
from the same Landlord I did -
This admitted that plain
tiff acted as a free person

Witness - plaintiffs mother
knew she rented the house - she
worked for the many to pay the rent
Louisas mother told me that plain
tiffs child should have all
of her property at her death She told
me this before she bought the Wash
street house & while she boarded with
plaintiff - I saw her frequently during
the day -

Cross Examined - I could not help but see her when
I went to my door.ourhouses were
near joining - I with her
& my husband did - he sometimes went
to see her when he wanted washing done
& when I sent him or he had an errand.
we were friendly but not intimate-
I saw her sometimes every day -
she eat sometimes with me & I with
her - her mother boarded a while with
her - Dont know whether it was for
pay - or only staying with her daughter.
knew plffs husband - welivedjoining.
I becameacquaintedwith him in the yard - he belonged to Mr.-
Mr. set him free he was nearly white
as Louisa - George is Louisas child -
I dont know who is his father - hard
to tell who is a childs father now a days - I have
children. I know the father of my
children - when I say I dont know
Georges father I mean I have no know
ledge about the father

Mrs Brown testified
I have known plaintiff about
eight years, have known her
mother about same time

Louisa , the plaintiff lived at Chicago
about two months. This was about a
year and a half ago. She returned from
there to St Louis about a year ago - she
returned here after her husband died at
Chicago - her mother lived on 6th street - her
mother gave up her house & boarded with plain
tiff about one month & then moved to her
home on Wash Street - plaintiff lived by
washing & her son George went to school
from her own house - during her
life time. I heard Lizzie (plffs mother) say
that Louis a was as free as she was, that
she never bought her to be a slave for
any person. I have heard her say that often
I suppose one hundred times - I
knew plaintiffs mother well. I lived
about five years in the same house
she lived in. I heard her speak of
plaintiff often during that time -
always when she spoke of her
she said "plaintiff was free, as free
as she was herself." she spoke also of
George , plaintiffs son. she said George
was free as well as his mother, and
that all the property she owned was Georges
I have heard her say this more than
once. I lived at same house with
Lizzie up to about two years before
she gave up the 6th street house - These
Conversations I have spoken of were
frequent - Lizzie sent plaintiff to
live as a free person - - I heard her
say so -

Lizzie knew all about plaintiffs
going to Chicago - she said she could
stay as long as she pleased. she said
she did not care whether she ever
cameback or not. I dont know
what her purpose was in going to Chicago.
If her husband had not died she
would have remained there. I know her
mother knew all about it - I heard
plaintiff say in her mothers presence
she wanted to go to Chicago to see
her husband. she did not say in her
mothers presence about how long she stayed
then - Her mother said "go along &
stay as long as she pleased she did
not care if she never came back -
plaintiffs husband was then living
in Chicago - Lizzie had spells of
sickness while I lived there. she was
always very sick, she had several spells -
plaintiff always came when she was
sick, & when she would get well, plff
would go home again - Lizzie would

go two or there times a year to
visit plaintiff & plaintiff would
return her visits -

CrossExamined - witness said -
I live on 7th Street between Wash &
FranklinAvenue. have lived there
a year the 10th of March I lived
one year on Morgan Street before I
lived on 6th with Lizzie Dickson - I went
then when she bought the house, that
was five years ago. I left there two
years ago. Lizzie died July 4thlast.-
It might be more than two years
before Lizzie died that I left her
home - I did not live with her
I rented from her. have known
Lizzie eight years - I lived there
five years - I am married, when
I lived at that home I was not
married, I lived by myself -
Lizzie never talked about "any" thing else
than this - I always heared her say
plaintiff & George were as free as
herself, of course I have hered
her talk about other things, I
was intimatewith her. I always
took her money to bank for her
Lizzie said in the same Conversations
she had bought Louisa to be free
she said she had bought her from Mississippi from aMr- she said
she never bought her to be a slave
but to be as free as she was herself.
she said her property was to bee the
George's she said she would set Louis & George free
at her death I recollect it
Re examined- testified, that
Lizzie said she had bought
Louisa to be free & not to be a
slave; from the time I first
knew her, I heard her often say
frequently plaintiff was free
was as free as she was

George - recalled
Deft objected - overruled &
exception

Witness testified I have heard
plaintiffs mother many times
say that Louisa was free &
could go where she pleased. I
cant say when I first heard
her say this, have heard her say
this at different times for the
last twelve years - she said
she intended giving her property

to plaintiff & her child George -
I heard her say this in Did many

The foregoing was all the evidence
given or offered in the cause

The Defendant then moved
the Court to give the following
information, which
refered by the Court (Here
copy instructions asked by
deft ) to the
Deft excepted

The Court from the following
instructions (here copy it)
to which Defendant excepted
The jury found a verdict
for plaintiff - That she
was a free person

time Defendant filed
his motion for a new trial
as follows (here copy it)
and which was by the Court
overruled & defendant excepted.
And defendant now he
this his bill of
exception and prays that
it may be signed sealed
and part a part of the
record herein and which
is

S.W.Breckinridge

In the Supreme Court held at St. Louis , of the State of Missouri ,March Term 1863
Thursday May 7th 1863

Appeal from
St Louis Circuit Court

Now again come the parties aforesaid, by their respective attorneys, and
the Court being now sufficiently advised of and concerning the premises, doth
consider and adjudge that the judgment rendered herein by the said St Louis
Circuit Court be in all things affirmed and stand in full force
and effect, and that the said respondent recover of the
said appellant her costs and charges herein expended, and
have execution therefore Opinion filed.

State Of Missouri , SS.

I, Andrew W. Mead, Clerk of the Supreme Court , held at St. Louis ,
of the State of Missouri , certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true and
complete copy of the judgment rendered in the above entitled cause, as fully as the
same remains of record in my office.

In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed
the seal of said Court, at office in the City of St. Louis ,
this Seventh day of May
A.D. eighteen hundred and sixty threeA. W. Mead Clerk

Supreme Court of Missouri .

Lewis
vs
Hart

Mandate.

Judgment Circuit Court
Affirmed

. No. 242

Continued by order of ct.

W. Atty.

Refused

At the instance of the defendant,
the Jury are instructed to find for
the Defendant - on the case made by
the Plaintiff-

We the Jury find for
the Plantiff

John Dunach
Foreman

Deft

Refused

3 The Jury are instructed that the
question for their determation is
not whether Elizabeth Dizon, intended
to emancipate Louisa - but whether
in fact she did so emancipate her
by deed executed in the presence
last will or other instrument in
writing signed under her hand &
seal, attested by two witnesses &
proved in the Circuit Court of St
Louis County , or by her
in said Court- and there is no
legal evidence of such emancipation.
in the cause:- The Jury will
therefore find for the Defendant.

Deft

Refused

If the Jury find from the evidence that
Elizabeth Dickinson puchased the Plaintiff
with the intention of setting her free at her
death, but did not do so, or otherwise
manumit her previous to her death you
ought to find for the Defendant.

Deft

Refused

The Jury are instructed that under the
evidence in the cause they are not authorised
to presume that the Plaintiff Louisa was
emancipated by deed will or other writingexecuted
in conformity to the Laws of this state
by Elizabeth Dickson the mother of said
Louisa

Refused

The Jury are instructed that under the
case made by the plaintiff neither Louisa
nor george are entitled to freedom. And
the Jury will find for the defendant as
to both

Deft

Refused

The Jury are instructed that though
they may find from the evidence
in the Cause that Elizabeth
Dixon, the mother of Louisa , and
grand mother of George - purchased
the said Louisa , with the intention
to emancipate her, and after said
purchase permitted her to act as a
free person, not subject to the control
of said Elizabeth Dixon up to the
period of the death of said Elizabeth
and that George was born of the
said Louisa after the said
purchase - such facts did not
work an emancipation, either of
the said Louisa or George

Deft

The Defendant asks the Court to instruct
the jury

Refused

That it is admitted by the pleadings
of Plff in this case that she was purchased by her
mother, and the only question for the Jury to
decide is whether she has been manumitted
and set free by her mother according to the
laws of Missouri - that is by last will, or any other
instrument in writing under her hand and seal
attested by two witnesses and proved in the
Circuit of the County where she resides, or
acknowledged by her in open court

Refused

If the jury further find in addition to
the facts contained in the first instruction
that the mother of the plaintiff bought
Louisa the Plaintiff, and with the intention
to set her free at her death but did not
do so they will find for Defendant.

Refused

The Jury are instructed that the question
for their determination is not whether Elizabeth
Dickinson intended to emancipate Louisa
but whether Elizabeth Dickinson in fact did
emancipate her by last will or other instrument
in writing under her hand and seal, attested
by two witnesses and proved in the Circuit
Court or acknowledged by her in said
Court

By Court

given

If the jury find from the evidence that
Lizzie Dickson the mother of the Plaintiff
Louisa , and the grandmother of the boy
George was a free negro, - that before the
birth of George she purchased Louisa
for the purpose of securing her freedom
that she treated Louisa as her daughter
and as a free person - That she per
mitted her to live by herself and to
act as a free person - that she allowed
her to go to Illinois to reside and to remain
there as long as she pleased - that on
her return after the death of her
husband she permitted her to live
alone - that she allowed her in all
respects to act and deal as a free person. -
that she frequently declared that
Louisa and her child were free and declared her purpose to give
her property at her death to George
or to Louisa and George , then the
Jury are authorized to find that
the Plaintiff is a free person

Plff

The plaintiff asks the Court to
instruct the jury as follows.

Refused

If the Jury find from the evidence
that Lizzie Dicksondeceased was a free
woman, and that plaintiff was the
child of said Lizzie , then the presumption
is that plaintiff is free. and
so the jury should find

Plff

Refused

It is not necessary that it shall be proven
by any writing that plaintiff was
emancipated - but it may be
presumed by the jury from facts
and circumstances in evidence.
Altho therefore the jury may
believe that plaintiff was at
one time the property of said Lizzie
Dickson, yet if they find from the
evidence that fourteen years or
more before her death, said Lizzie
treated her as a free person
and plaintiff lived to herself as
free, contracted and did
a free person & removed from this stated to Illinois & there resided with the knowledge
and permission of said Lizzie -
then the jury may presence therefrom that she was manumitted
and was free

Instructions

Plff & Deft
refused

Louisa Lewis
vs
H. N . Hart
Admr

Deft

Refused

It is not necessary for plaintiff
to establish her right to freedom
by the
production of any deed of
emancipation setting her free.
but her right to freedom may
be proven by Circumstantial
evidence - If from the
evidence either positive or
circumstancial, the jury believes
she was emancipated & is entitled to her freedom
they will so find -