To the Hon. Byan Mallanphy, Judge of the Circuit Court of
St Louis County.

Your pititioner Pierre , a mulatto, respectfully
presents, that his mother a negress named Rose or Rosalie was born
in Montrial in about the year seventeen hundred
and sixty eight that in the year seventeen hundred and sixty
one or thereabouts the said Rose and taken from Montreal
to Prarie Du Chien in the North West territory of the United
States by one John Stock, when she remained with said Stock
until his death, which as believe in
the year seventeen hundred and ninety four, rendering service
to him his family. That about the year seventeen
hundred and ninety five one Andrew Todd took your
Petitioner's mother the said Rose , from prarie Du Chien , and brought
her to St Louis , them in on the Spanish government now the
city of St Louis , in the County of St Louis , state of Missouri , and
on the twenty eighth day of October in the same year sold the
said Rose to one Pierre Joseph , by bill of sale of
— Petitioner further
States that on the eighth day of August seventeen hundred
ninty eight by bill of sale of that date ()
the said sold the said Rose , your petitioners mother
to one Auguste Chonteau , together with her two children
describing them in said bill of sale as a “negress named
Rose , a native of Montreal in Canada aged about 30 years,
and her two sons Benoist two years old and Juissaint ten
months old, both born in this county”: in this bill of sale the
said Didice expressly that he gives no warranty
as to the title of said Rose and her said two childrenYour
Petitioner further States that his mother, the said Rose
remained in the service of said Chouteau until the time of
her death - that whilst in the service of said Choteau , the
said Rose because the mother of several children
amongst whom is your petitioner, from about the year
eighteen hundred and eight. After the death
of said Choteau , which happened several years ago your petitioner
came into the possession of Theresa Choteau his widow who
claimed petitioner as his slave, and to whom he did service
that That during the summer of eighteen hundred and forty two
the said Theresa Choteau died within the county of St Louis
aforesaid and the happening of which event your petitioner
came into the possession of Gabrial S. Chouteau who
now holds you petitioner in servitude as a slave in the said
County of St Louis and within the jurisdiction of said Court.

Your petitioner claims to the freeman, first because his mother
was born free being a native of a British Province in which slavery
was not tollerated and secondly because if his mother was
born a slave, she because by her residence at Prarie du Chien
as aforesaid, a free person by of the Ordinance of Congress
of seventeen hundred and eighty seven. Your Petitioner therefore
prays your honor to allow him to sue as a poor person in an
action of false imprisonment against said Gabrial S. Chouteau
in order to establish his right to freedom & he will &c.

Pierre his X of color
mark

State of Missouri
St Louis County Ss

Pierre a man of Color being duly
sworn says that the and stated in the
forgoing petition are true to the best of his knowledge
and belief

Pierre his x of color
markSworn to &
the fourth day of
November A D 1842 Alphonso Witmore
justice of the Peace
for St Louis County

Being of opinion that the petition of Peirre ,
contains sufficient matter to authorise the commencement
of a suit, I allow the same and make the following orders. Suit that said Peirre , be allowed to sue as a poor person
to establesh his right to freedom, and do assign Wilson
Primm and L. B . Murdoch as his counsel.

Second. That said Pirre have reasonable liberty to
attend his conusel and the Court, as occassion may
require: that he be not removed out of the jursidiction of the
Court, and that he be not subject to any severity on account
of his application for freedom.

Mullanphy
judge of the
Court of the State of Missouri

Pierre , of Color
vs.
Gabrial S . Chouteau

Petition for to sue
to establish right to
freedom.

Wilson Primm & J. B . Murdoch attys for petitioners

State of Missouri
St Louis In the Circuit Court of
St Louis County Nov. Term
1842.

Peirre a man of Color complains of Gabriel
S. Chouteau of a plea of trespass for that the said defendant
Gabriel S . Chouteau , on the first day of November eighteen
hundred and forty two, made an assault upon the said
Plaintiff, to wit at the County aforesaid and then and
then beat, bruised and ill treated him, the said plaintiff
and then and there imprisoned him the said plaintiff and
detained him in prison there, without any reasonable or probably cause whatsoever, for a long time to wit
for the space of twenty four hours, then next following
contray to the laws of the said state and the will of the
said plaintiff: and the said plaintiff avers that before
and at the time of the committing of the grievancesaforesaid
by the said defendant, he was is a free person
and that the said defendant held hold the said plaintiff, in salvery. To the plaintiff damage
one hundred dollars and therefore he brings said:

Wilson Primm &
P. B . Murdoch
attys for pltf.

St Louis Circuit Court
November Term 1842

Pierre (of Color)
vs.Gabreil S. Chouteau

in false Impt.
Suit for freedom

Clerk will IssueSums.

Wilson Primm
P. B . Murdoch
attys for Pltf5 Nov. 1842

County of St. Louis
Of Missouri ,To the Sheriff of St. Louis CountyGreeting:

summons Gabriel S. Chouteau if
County, that he be and
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, nextthen and there to answer unto Pierre (a
man of Color) of a plea of trespass
to the damage of said plantiff of five hundred
dollars and have you then there this

Witness, John Ruland ,
with the seal thereof hereto
city of St. Louis , this
November in the year of
hundred and forty two. Jno Ruland
Clerk.

I acknowledge myself bound for all costs that may accrue in the above cause.

Witness my hand and seal, at St. Louis , this day of 184

to reinstate filed

No. 125 St. Louis Circuit Court
November Term 1842

Pierre (of Color)
vs.Summons
Gabriel S . Chouteau

Suit for freedom (Tresspass)

Primm& Murdock p.9.

that said Pierre be allowed to
as a poor person to establish his right
to freedom, an do assign Wilson Primm &
J . B . Murdoch as his Counsel. Second
that said Pierre have reasonable liberty
to attend his Counsel and the Court as
occasion may require: that he be not
carriedout of the jurisdiction of the Court
and that he be not subject to any severity
on account of his application for freedom
Bryan Mullanphy Judge of the 8th
Jud. Cir. of the State of Missouri .

filed Nov. 8th 1842 Jno Ruland Clk.

County of St. Louis

William shffby Ernst Wm Decker Dpty Service
$ 1.00

St Louis Circuit Court

Pierre
vs. Gabriel S . Chouteau

And the said
defendant by his attorney comes &de-
fends the and injury when
&.C and says that he is not guilty
of the said trespasses in the declaration
in manner & & form as in
seid declaration mentioned &of their
he himself upon the county
&.C

Spalding & Tiffany
attys for deft

125 St Louis Circuit Court

Pierre
vs.
Gabriel S . Chouteau

plea

Spalding & Tiffany
attyFiled Nov 21st 1842 Jno Ruland Clerk

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.

Known Ye, that we, in confidence of yor 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
Pierre
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 witness, 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 three Jno Ruland Clerk C. C.

Pierre
vs
Gabriel S. Chouteau

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 evidence in the above cause,
on the part of Defendant will be taken at the dwelling
house of Pierre Menard in the town of
Kaskaskia
in the County of and State of Illinois on the first
day of December nest 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 Nov 1843 Spalding & Tiffany
attys for Plff

Recd a copy of the within notice this 20th day
of November 1843, at St Louis for and on
behalf of the pltff.

Primm & Taylor
atto for pltffdelivered a true copy of this notice to the plain-
tiff Pierre on the 22nd Nov. 1843. Service 50 cts William Milburn ShffBy Henry B Belt Depty

Pierre
vs
Chouteau

Mr Sheriff give
one to Fr. Murdock
& one to Pierre &
make your return on this one-

Opened & filed Dec 12 1843.

Jno . Ruland Clerk.

Pierre
vs
G. S. Chouteau

Depositions for Defendant

Justice's fees
$1.00.
Clerk fees .50
Not mentioned whether paid
or due. Postage 40 cents paid by
defendant
78
46
32 Menard

Deposition of Pierre Menard of Kaskaskia a witness
produced sworn and examined at the dwelling house of said Pierre
Menard in the Town of Kaskaskia in County of Randolph
and state of Illinois before me Dwight Hunt a Justice of
the Peace within and for the said Town of Kaskaskia in
a certain cause now pending in the St Louis Circuit
Court in the State of Missouri between Pierre plain-
tiff and Gabriel S. Chouteau defendant on the part of
the Defendant

Pierre Menard of lawful age being produced sworn and
examined on the part of the Defendant deposith and
says-

I reside in the town of Kaskaskia , I left
Canada in August seventeen hundred and
eighty six - If the time I left the Province of
Canada , and previous thereto, there was in the
province negroes and mulattaes who were held and
known as slaves- they were generally employed
about the house and treated as the house slave
in the slave states of the united states. They
were recognised as the property of their masters
and subject to be sold and disposed of- I do not recollect
any particular instance in which they were sold

Pierre Menard

I Dwight Hunt a Justice of the peace within and for the
township of Kaskaskia County of Randolph and State of Illinois
do hereby certify that in pursuance of the annexedcommission
and notice cause before me Pierre Menard who was by me
sworn to testify the whole truth of his knowledge touching the
matters in controvercy in the cause aforesaid that said deponent
was examined and his examination reduced to writing and
subscribed by him in my presence at the dwelling house
of said Pierre Menard in the Town of Kaskaskia in the
County of Randolph and State of Illinois on the 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 said day and the said deposition is now herewith
returned

Given and certified at Kaskaskia county of Raudolph and
state of Illinois this first day of December 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 Illinois hereby certify that on the first day
of December eighteen hundred and forty three Dwight Hunt was
and now is a Justice of the Peace within and for the Township
of Kaskaskia in the County of Randolph and state of Illinois duly
commissioned as such and that full faith and to
his acts as such

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

Pierre (of Colour)
vs
Gabriel S . Chouteau

In the Circuit Court of
St Louis County State of Miss
ouri

To Gabriel S . Chouteau

Your are hereby Notified
that depositions of witnesses to be read in the
in evidence in the above cause on the part
of the plaintiff will be taken at the office
of Hugh in the town of St Charles
State of Missouri on the twenty first day of January
in the year eighteen hundred and forty four
between the hours of 8 o'clock in the forenoon and 8 o'clock in the afternoon. And that the
taking of the said depositions if not completed
on that day will be continued from day to day
at the same plae and between the same hours untill
completed

Primm & Taylor
attys for Plff

Pierre (of Colour)
vs
Gabriel S Chouteau

Served this notice in the County of St Louis on the 26th
day of January 1844 by delivering a true copy theeof to
Gabriel S Chouteau the within named plaintiff.

Wm Milburn Shrff
By EW Decker Dpty Service
$0.50

Deposition of awitness produced and sworn and
examined On the 31st day of January in the year
of our Lord eighteen hundred and forty four
between the hours of 8 of clock in the fornoon and
6 of the Clock of the afternoon of that day, at the
Office of . . in the Lawn of St. Charles
and Courty, of St St. Charles , before me
a Justice of the Peace within
and for the Countyaforesaid in a certain
cause now depending in the Circuit Court
of the county, of Saint Louis , in the state of
Missouri between ( Pierre alias Peter ) a man
of Colour Plaintiff, and Gabriel S Chouteau
Defendant.

John being produced sworn
and examined on the part of the plaintiff
deposeth& saith, I have known the plaintiff
Pierre for a number of years, ever since he was a
small boy, he was in the possession or at the
house of Defendant Gabriel S Chouteau
I saw a woman of colour at PriareDu Chein in
the year 1799 at the house of Mr Brigebois
which woman I was informed was brot from
Canada by, Mr Todd a Trader belonging to
the N M Company of British Furr Traders
I have frequently saw the mother of Plaintiff
Called Rose , at the house of Defendant, but
I do not have of my own knowledge wheather
she was the same woman I saw at Priare
Du Chien I have been frequently told by Joseph
Garvey , that he was with Todd when he
Came from Canada and that Brot
the woman I saw at Priari Chien

from Canada , and that she was called Rose
and was the same woman I saw at the
house of , Defendant in St Louis , and the same
woman Rose who was the mother of Sd
Plaintiff Pierr said Joseph Garvey has been
dead about two months, I always believed him
to he a man of truth he frequently made
the same statement to me in to
that , and I have good reason to believe
and do believe, that he told me the truth

No. 125 Nov T. 1842

Gabriel S . Chouteau the said Defendant
told me about three weeks since, that
he had meant to see Joseph Garvey , and
had asked Sd Garvey if he knew the mother
of said plaintiff Pierre , and that Garvey
told him he did that he the Sd Garvey
has came with her from Canada ,
and was the same woman of which
I have spoken as having seen at Priari
Du Chien but this is my own inference

Cross examination

Defendant objects to that part of the Defendants
testimony which he give as hearing from others
Question By deft How old are you,
Ans sixty eight on the 15th of Julynext
Qu what time did you leave Canada
Ans On the 15th of April 1799
andarrived in Missouri in August
of the same year
How long did you stay in Priari Du Chien
Ans Istaid but five days

Q At whose house did you put up while
at Priari Du Chien

Ans I put up at no house.

Q Do you of your ownknowledge know
where the Black Woman was from
of whom you speak in the first part
of your Testimony

Ans I do not I never saw her before
or since at Priari Du Chien

Q Do you know what her
when you first saw her

Ans I do not

Q Do you know Pire the Plaintiff in this suit

A I know him in1815 or 1817. he was then a
boy, I know him at St Louis ,
at which time I dont think he was
over five years of age- I heard the boy
Rose his mother but whether she was his own
or his nurse mother I cannot
I cannot tell that the woman
Mr Chouteau was the same woman I saw
at Priari Du Chien at the Conversations alluded
to in the examination in cheif Mr. Chouteau
told that the woman was brot to this
country by one Benoist but her Deponent
said she was brot from Canada by Todd
as he was informed - and this is in correction
of the last period of my testimony in chief
Farther this Deponent Saith not

Signed John

State of Missouri
County of St. Charles

I Mr a Justice of the peace within and
for the County of St Charles and state of Missouri , do hereby certify
that the Deponent John , was by me sworn to testify the truth
and the whole truth of his knowledge the matter in con-
torversy aforesaid that he was examined & his examination reduced
to writing and subscribed in my presence on the day between
the hourss, and at the place in that behalf first aforesaid

Signd,

Depositions taken in the cause be now
in the St Louis Circuit Court
Pierre a man of Colour is
plaintiffvs. G. S . Chouteau is
Defendant, on the part of plaintiff.

opened & filed Feby 2nd 1844. Jn Ruland Clerk

Pierre
vs.
G. S . Chouteau

John Ruland Esq., Clerk of the St. Louis
Circuit Court
Saint Louis
MO


County of St Louis , Ss.
The State Of Missouri ,To Paschall Cerri Michael Madame
Tison and - Tison hereldest son
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 Twelth Day of February in the
Year eighteen hundred & Forty four 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 Pierre is the
plaintiff and Gabriel S . Chouteau is the
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 fifth day of February
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
forty-four John Ruland Clerk C. C.

Excd the 10th Feby
Wm Milburn shff
by
depty

1844 fees $ 2.00

Pierre
vs
Gabriel S . Chouteau
12th July

Pascal S. Cerri Michael Madame Tisson Tisson - her
eldest son

County of St Louis , Ss.
The State Of Missouri ,To Paschall Cerri Michael Madam Ti-
son and - Tison her eldest son.
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 12th day of February in the
year eighteen hundred & forty four 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 Pierre is
plaintiff and Gabriel S. Chouteau is the
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 fifth day of February
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
forty-four John Ruland Clerk C. C.

Execd the 10th July
1844 Wm Milburn shff

Murphy
dpty fees $2.00

Pierre
vs
Gabriel S Chouteau
12th July

Pascal S . Cerri Michael Madam Tisson &
Tisson her Eldest
Son
for plff
4

County of St Louis , ss.
The State Of Missouri ,To Doctor 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 12th day of February in
the year eighteen hundred & forty four 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 Pierre is the Plaintiff
plaintiff and Gabriel S Chouteau is the
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 10th day of February
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
forty- four John Ruland Clerk C. C.

Pierre
vs
Chouteau

DoctTroudeau

Executed the 12th
February 1844

WmBy Murphy
dpty fees 50 cents

County of St Louis , ss. The State Of Missouri ,To James H. Milbourne Clerk of the County Court of
St Louis County
Greeting:

You are hereby commanded, that setting aside all manner of excuse and delay, you appear
before the Judge of our Circuit Court , on theforthwith
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 Pierre (a person of color) is
plaintiff and G. S. Chouteau , is
defendant on the part of the Plaintiff; and also that you have then there a
certain deed from Andrew Todd to and said to Auguste Chouteau of the first numberd
666, and the last described Numbered 750 of the spanish archives on file in the said office
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 thirteenth day of February
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
forty- four. John Ruland Clerk C. C.

Pierre
vs
G. S Chouteau

subpoena for
James H Miller
forthwith

Executed 13th Feb
ruary 1844


fees50 cents

Pierre
vs
Gabriel S. Chouteau

by
his Counsel the Court to set aside
the verdict & grant a new trial
for the following reasons

1 Because said verdict is against
law.

2. Because it is against evidence
& the weight of evidence

3 Because the court gave wrong
instructions & to give
instructions asked on behalf of the
defendant

4. Because the court to
examine the Jury as required by
this defendant previous to their being
sworn in the case

Spalding & Tiffany
attys for deft

St Louis Circuit Court

Pierre
vs.
Gabriel S. Chouteau

Reasons for new
trial

Spalding & Tiffany
attysFiled Feby 15th 1844 John Ruland Clerk
384

St. Louis Circuit Court

Pierre
vs.
Gabriel S. Chouteau

Be it remembered
that on the trial of this suit the plaintiff
introduced Pascal S . Cerré as a witness who
certified that in the year one thousand seven
hundred and ninety four he saw at michil
imackinac this mother of the plaintiff; that
she was their acting as a servant in the
Kitchen of one Etienne Campiou: the
next time that he saw her she was at
St. Louis & belonged to Auguste Chouteau , who
as he had got her from one Didier a
priest: that mackinaw, at the time afore-
said, when he saw her there, he had un-
til lately, thought was then in the posses-
sion of the Americans: That plaintiff was
at St. Louis : that he did not know
who brought her to Mackinaw , but she
told the witness that she had come from
Montreal . & stated where her was lived
in that city: that in the year seventeen
hundred eighty one he witness saw at
Mackinaw , a black woman that had here ta-
ken from St. Louis & sold to : he also
saw at Montreal another that had here
taken by the Indians from St. Louis & sold
by the Indians, but that he does not know
whether they were slaves or not: that
he never saw any preson sold as a
slave there: that he witness was in
but came from there to St. Louis
when he was only four years old: & when nine
years old he want to Quebec to School in
1781 & returned from School there to St. Louis
in 1787: he went to Canada in 1791
& since then, had never been there: that
plaintiff is held as a slave of the
of & the defendant is
administrator & has control over plaintiff.

Michael Marli witness also for plaintiff testified
that he knew rose the mother of the plain-
tiff at Mackinaw forty eight or forty
nine years ago, more or less, which place
was then in the hands of the British ; about
a year or eighteen months after that he saw
her again at Prairie der Chien , at the house
of one Stock where she was a slave or
Servant, he is unable to say which: he after
saw her at St. Louis & She then be
longed to Didier the priest: that Prairie
Du Chien was in the possession of
the British at the time he saw Rose there
that a year or two after he saw her at
Prairie du Chien , there was a war between
the English & us, & they killed a good many
of our people: he one
commanded, & the man lasted three or four
months: that said Stock was an English-
man a man & had a horse of his
own & lived there & was a trader & many
of the principal people

as a slave on the public square there in
Montreal : that she saw the man who bought
her start off, & when he came back he
said he had bought her for a horse:
that she did not see the sale made
that the said purchases took her to his
house, & stated that she was his slave
that she saw the same woman after
wards at Didier's in St. Louis , that
Col . , Campbell had slaves
in montreal but whether those slaves were
ever sold, she did not know: that she
had seen those slaves, they were men &
women: their master stated that they
were slaves, & it was in
Montreal , their place of residence, that they
were slaves; they were not treated as
roughly as slaves are treated here, and
were employed as house servants: the
witness further stated that she was in
the year 1768 and that she came to
this country 57 years ago.

Antoine Smith also a witness for defendant
testified that he is seventy three years of age
and was born in Canada , & come from
Canada fifty three years ago: but there
were slaves in Montreal negroes & mixed
of negro & Indian; that he never
asked their master whether they were slaves
that those slaves were held by
& by major Campbell &by a George
with Stock: that he never saw Stock
except there & dont know his first name

The plaintiff by his counsel, there read in evidence
the translations of two conveyances taken from
that Spanish Archives at St. Louis in the
word's & figures following (here insert the
translations of conveyance from Todd to Did-
ier & from Didier to Auguste Chouteau
A. No. 1. & B. No. 2.)

The plaintiff here his case, the depen-
dant then offered in evidence the following
deposition of Pierre Menard having first
that said Menard resides at kaskas-
kia in the State of Illinois (here insert
the deposition) the plaintiff objected to the
reception of the same in evidence an the
ground of the incompetence of the testimony
which objection the Court sustained & eclu-
ded the same: to which opinion of the court
excluding said deposition the defendant by
his counsel excepted.

Madame Tison a witness for defendant certified
that in the year 1781 she was acquainted
with Rose the mother of plaintiff at
Montreal : that she was sold at Montreal

that he witness lived opposite to Col .
in Montreal & saw said Slaves frequently
that he never saw any of them sold & dont
know whether they were slaves for life:

On motion of the plaintiffs, attorney the
court excluded from the evidence that
of the Jury all the testimony of the said An-
toine Smith & Madame Tisson to
on the Same tended to prove the existence
of Slavery in Canada : to which decision
of the Court excluding the same the de-
fendant by his counsel excepted.

The defendant their read in evidence the
article of the treaty of Amity, Com-
merce & nevigation between his Britannic
majesty & the United States dated nineteenth
of November in the year seventeen hundred &
ninety four, which it is agreed may be read
in the Supreme Court from any
as a part of this Record.

The defendant also read in evidence an ex-
tract from the speech of George Washington
President of the United States to both houses
of Congress another seventh day of December
in the year seventeen hundred and ninety
six, which extract is in the following words,
“The during the late at which
the appropriation was passed for carrying into
affect the traty of Amitycommerce & navi
gation between the United States & his Brit -
annic Majesty necessarily the
reception of the posts stipulated to be de-
livered beyond the date assigned for that event,
As soon however as the Governor General
of Canada could he addressed with proper-
ty on the subject arrangements were cor-
dially & promptly concluded for their evac-
uation and the United States took possession
of the principal of there comprehending
Oswegs, Niagara, Detroit , michilimack-
inac & Fort Miami where such repairs &
additions have been ordered to be made
as appeared indispensable”.

No other testimony was given in the case, the
defendant then asked the court to instruct
the Jury as follows.

1 The facts that the mother of the plain-
tiff was born or held as a slave in Can-
ada, and was at Michilimackinac and
Prairie du Chien while those places con-
tinued in possession of the British Gov-
ernment, do not nor does either of them
entitle the plaintiff to his freedom.

2 If the Jury find from the evidence
that Slavery existed in Canada , that the
mother of the plaintiff was there held as
as Slave - the fact of her residence in

4

Canada or at other places at the time
in possession of the British Government
and before the surrender of there places to
the American Government does not in-
vite the plaintiff to his freedom.

While the Court refered to give &
each of them to whcih referral the defen-
dant by his counsel executed.

The Court then of its awe mother - in-
structed the Jury on follows.

Slavery or involuntary servitude never
did exist in either of the Canadas , to
the giving of which instruction the defen-
dant by his counsel executed.

Before the Jury were sworn to try this cause
and after they came sworn to answer ques-
tion the defendant by his counsel asked have
of the Court to inquire of the Jury whether
any of them, felt in conscience to find
a verdict in favor of the freedom
of plaintiff notwithstanding the law might
hold him in slavery: which question the
court refused to permit to be put to the Jury or any of them: to which refusal of
the court the plantiff defendant by
his counsel excepted, & prays the court
to sign & seal this his Bill of exceptions
which is done accordingly. The defen-
dant there moved for a new trial
for the following reasons filed in wri-
ting (here insert ) which be-
tween the court & the defen-
dant by his counsel excepted to the
decision of the court the
same & pray the Court to Sign &
Seal this his Bill of Exception
which is done accordingly.

Bryan Mullanphy Judge of MO.

St. Louis Circuit Court

Pierre
vs.
Gabriel S. Chouteau
Bill of Exception

Filed July 15th 1844 John Ruland Clerk

Pierre
vs.
Gabriel S. Chouteau

The defendant prays
an appeal in this case & being duly
sworn on his oath says that his said
appeal is not made of are
duly but because they affiant believes
that he is by the Judgment
of the court

Gabriel S. Chouteau Sworn to & Subscribed before
me February 15th. 1844
John Ruland Clerk St
Louis Circuit Court

Pierre
vs.
Chouteau

Affidavit for

Filed July 15th 1844. John Ruland Clerk

Gabriel S Chouteau
vs
Pierre (of color)

Filed May 16th 1845 John Ruland Clk

No. 1. C B
Ex

1 Gabriel S. Chouteau vs. Pierre (of Color.)

Appeal from St Louis Circuit Court

Scott Judge, delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was a suit for freedom, brought
by Pierre against Chouteau , in which a Judgment was
rendered for Pierre , to reverse which this appeal is prosecuted.

The petition of Pierre sets for the that
his mother Rose , was a negress, and was born in Montreal
in Lower Canada , about the year 1968. That in the year
1791. or there abouts, his mother was taken from Montreal to
Prairie du Chien , in the North West Territory of the U.S.
by one Stork, where she remained until his death, in or
about the year 1794, rendering service to him and his
family. That about the year 1795 Andrew Todd , took
Rose , his mother from Prairie Der Chien , and brought her to
St Louis , where she was sold in October of that year, to one Didier , a priest, and in August 1798, she was
sold by Didier to Auguste Chuteau, with her two children
Didier conveyed the slaves to Chouteau without warranty
of title, though Todd conveyed to Didier with warranty. That which his mother was in the service of Chouteau , she had
several children amongst whom was the petitioner. That
after the death of A. Chouteau , the petitioner came into the
possession of the plaintiff in error. G. S. Chouteau by whom
he is held in slavery.

Pierre based his right to
freedom on two grounds, first. that his mother
Rose , was born free being a native of a British province
in which slavery was not tolerated; Secondly, that
if his mother was a slave, by his residence at
Prairie Du Chien , she became free, by virtue of the
ordinance of 1787, for the government of the North
Western Territory.

On the part of Pierre and was
in , conducting to prove, that Rose was a slave
or servant, and her residence at the Mackinaw and Prai-
rie Du Chien , about the time states in the petition. During
the period of Rose's , delution at Prairie Du Chien , that part
was in the possession of British subjects. It was shown
in evidence that Pierre was born in St Louis . A conveyance
of Rose , who it appears was acquired from the representatives
of the estate of Joshua Stock, dated Oct. 1795, and executed
by Andrew Todd , a merchant of Montreal in Canada ,
to one Didier , a Curate of the Parish of St. Louis , was
read in evidence, also a conveyance of Rose and her two children
made by Didier to A. Chouteau . This conveyance was dated
in August 1793.

The defendant below gave evidence, tending
to show, the actual existence of Slavery in Canada , in the
year 1786. That slaves were recognized as property, and
subject to be sold. That Rose , the mother of Pierre was
sold as a slave in Canada . Treaty and documents relative to the occupation of the North Western posts
by Great Britain , were read in evidence.

The Court excluded from the con-
sideration of the jury, all the evidence tending to prove the exis-
tence of Slavery in Canada , to which an exception was
taken.

The following instructions asked by the plain
-tiffs in error, were refused by the Court. 1st That the facts
that the mother of the plaintiff was born and held as a slave in
Canada , and was at Mackinaw and Prairie Du Chien , which
those places, continued in the possession of the British Government
do not, nor does either of them, entitle the plaintiff to his freedom-
2nd If the jury find from the evidence, that slavery existed
in Canada , that the mother of the plaintiff was there
held as a slave, the fact of her residence in Canada , or other
places, at the time, to the possession of the British Government,
and before the surrender on of these places, does not entitle the plaintiff
to his freedom. Exceptions were taken to the referral of
these instructions.

The court instructed the jury, that slavery
or involuntary servitude, never did exist in either of the Canadas . An exception was taken to the giving this instruction.

Before the jury were sworn, the defendant below asked leave to
enquire of the jurors when sworn to answer questions, if any of
them felt bound in conscience to find a verdict in favor of the freedom of
the plaintiff, notwithstanding the law might held him in slavery?
The court refused to permit this question to be part to the jury, to
which refusal an exception was taken.

The first point we will notice is that growing
out of the refusal of the Court, to allow a juror to be asked, if he felt in
Conscience bound to find a verdict, in favor of the freedom of the plaintiff,
notwithstanding the law might hold him in slavery? We cannot
well conceive, how a juror could be considered as indifferent between
the parties, who labored under the bias, supposed by the question.
Nor do we see what objections can be urged against its pro-
priety. An affirmative Answer does not tend to the disgrace
or infamy of the juror. We know that there are many
in our Sister States, who do entertain such opinions, they
may find their way amongst us, and so long as Slavery
is tolerated in this State, our Courts should be clothed with the
power of preventing our laws, from being openly set
at defiance, and under the pretence of administering
justice, to permit jurors to trample in the dust, the
rights of property of our Citizens. No loyal or faithful
Citizen will object to answering the question. It will fully
appreciate the motives which prompt it, and while he
laments the cause, which renders such an enquiry
necessary he yield a ready obedience to the law, which
prescribes such a test, in order to ascertain his fitness
as a juror, in cases involving the right to property,
of the species claimed by the defendant in error.
We are not without authority on this question.

In the case of Queen vs Hebburn G. Granch 290,
which was a suit for freedom, a juror was called, who,
upon being questioned avowed his detestation of Slavery,
to be such, that in a doubtful case, he would find
a verdict for the petitioner, and that he had so
expressed himself in the very case, and that if the
testimony were equal, he should certainly fined a
verdict for the petitioner. The Court which tried
4
the cause, instructed the triers that he did not stand
indifferent. This was for Error in the Supreme Court ,
and chief Justice Marshall in delivering its opinion,
observed, that Jurors should be superior to every excep-
tion, they ought to stand perfectly indifferent between the
parties and that the court below exercised a sound discre-
tion, in not permitting the juror to be sworn. The objection
now under consideration is much more forcible, than
that in the preceding case, for if suppose, that the juror
will not find a verdict for one of the parties, at the law and
the evidence be as it may, where as in the other the juror
had only declared that in case of a doubt or equipoise
of the testimony, the claimant should have the benefit of
it. On another occasion, Chief Justice Marshall
speaking of the qualification of Jurors remarks-
I have always conceived, and still conceive, an impar-
tial jury as required by the common Law, and as secured by
the Constitution, must be composed of men, who will fairly
hear the testimony which may be offered to them, and bring
in their verdict according to that testimony, and according
to the law on it. This is not to the expected, certainly
the law does not expect it, when the jurors before they hear
the Testimony have deliberatly formed and delivered an
opinion. The Jury should enter upon the trial, with
mind, open to these impressions, which the testimony
and the law of the Case ought to make, not with those
preconceived opinion, which will resist those impressions.

The instruction given to the
jury, to wit, that slavery or involuntary servitude,
does not, nor never did exist in either of the Canadas
is complained of by the plaintiff in error. There was
some condensing to show, that slavery did
actually exist in Canada at the time the mother of
the plaintiff ( Pierre ), was Detained in that Country , and
the instruction can only be predicted, on the idea, that
the proof of the existence of slavery, can only be established
by position and idea entirely inconsistent

5

with the history of the introduction of slavery into America .
In the Colonies owned by European powers on this Continent, the existence of slavery
was recognized by many enactments, but no legislative Memorial
has been discovered, which expressly authorized the subjection
of the African Race to bondage. The King in Europe
possessing Colonies in America , from motives of Cupidity,
supplied them with African Slaves, and this com
-merce of the Mother Country , was the foundation and the
right of the Colonists, to hold these slaves in servitude
Slavery seem, to have had no other origin in America .
So ardently did the English nation engage in this commerce,
that it was persisted in although against the remonstrances
of a Colony into which the slaves were introduced.

England was delighted with the article of the treaty of
Utricht, by which she obtained the assiento or contract
for supplying the Spanish Colonies with negroes, which had
formerly been enjoyed by France. Spain , it seems, was
the first European Kingdom, to introduce negroes into
America , with a view of relieving the Indians from
servitude. The territory of which this state composes
a part, has been subject to both the Kingdoms of
France and of Spain , and our Courts take judicial
notice of the laws, which prevailed here under their
respective Governments. Canada , prior to the
treaty of by B. was a colony of France . We know
that no law ever existed here, under the French and
Spanish Governments, which expresly authorized the
Slavery of Negroes, although such Slavery did in fact
exist. Nor has such a statute been found in any
of the British Colonies, although Slavery
existed in all of them. Seville vs, 1st
Con: Louisiana Rep 367.- Robertson's History of
America .- Margaret vs Chouteau 3. Mo. Rep.

There was evidence conducing to
show that Slavery did in fact exist in Canada ,
and if there was a law prohibiting it, by what
authority did the Court take Judicial notice of
that law?

The Statute under which
Pierre sues, he being a negro requires that he should
prove his right of freedom. Then it would seem, that
it on him, to the law, forbiding negro
Slavery; for from the preseding account of the origin
of Slavery in America a court would not he war-
ranted in saying that institution was illegal in
places where it actually existed for want of a law
expressly authorizing it.

As to the ground on which Pierre
bases his right to freedom, growing out of the fact of his
mother being held as a slave in the posts of the North
Western Territory Contrary to the Ordinance of 1787, which
prohibited Slavery within its Limits, we are of opinion
that the possession of those posts by British Subuects,
at the time of her detention at prevented the operation
of the ordinance within their limits and jurisdiction.
It is assumed that the Courts will take notice of the history
of the Country . Greenleafs Evidence - 7. Rep. 98. Hart vs Bodley. Treaties are apart of the Supreme law of
the land, and will be judicially noticed by our Courts.
In the definition treaty of Paris dated Sept. 3. 1783-
Great Britain , stipulated to withdraw all her armies,
garrisons, and fleets, from the United States , and from
every post, place, and harbor, within the same. This
treaty was not fulfilled on the part of Britain ,
She alledging as a justification of her conduct,
in this respect, a violation of other articles of the
treaty by the United States ; this was contin-
ued between the two countries, until the 19 Novr. 1794,
when a treaty of Amity Commerce and navigation
was concluded between Great Britain and the
United States . By the Second Article of this treaty Great
Britain stipulated to with draw all her troops and
garrisons, from all posts and places within the
boundary lines, assigned by the treaty of peace
to the United States the evacuation to
take place on or before, the 1st of June 1796,

the United States extending in the mean time, at their
direction their settlements to any part within the said
boundary line except within the precincts or jurisdiction
of any of the said posts. All settlers and traders within
the precincts or jurisdiction of said posts, were to continue
in the unmolested enjoyment of all their property
of every kind, and be protected therein. They were to be
at full liberty to remain there of to with all or
any part of their effects, and they were free to sell their
homes, lands or effects, or to retain the property thereof
at their discretion, of them a to reside in
the said boundary lines were not to be complelled to become
citizens of the United States , or to take any oath of allegiance
to the government thereof, but they were to be at full liberty
to do so if they thought proper, and they were to make and declare
their election within one year after the evacuation aforesaid.
On the seventh December 1796, General Washington
then President of the United States in a speech addressed to
the two houses of Congress , informed them that the period,
during the late session, at which the appropriation
was passed, for carrying into effect the treaty of amity. Commence, and navigation, between the United States and
his Britania Majesty, necessarily the
reception of the posts stipulated to be delivered beyond
the date assigned for that event. As soon however, as
the Governor General of Canada , Could be addressed with
properity on the subject, arrangements were cordially,
and promptly concluded for their evacuation, and the
United States took possession of the principal of them, com-
prehending, Oswego Niagara, Detroit , Michilmack
anae, and Fort Miami: American State papers page 30,
Vol. 1. Title, Foreign Relations.

Then it appears, that the North
Western posts were not until after 1st June 1796surren
-dered by Great Britain , that her subjects within
them owed no allegiance to our Government, that they
were protected in the enjoyment of their property, and
that the United States restrained themselves from extending
8
their jurisdiction within the said posts or precincts, until
after the period assigned for their surrender, then clearly showing
that before that period, they claimed no jurisdiction in the
said posts or precincts. The foregoing provisions of the treaty
of 1794, clearly that the ordinance of 1787. for the
Government of the North Western Territory, never
had any force or validity in the posts or precincts occupied
by Great Britain . It appears the Mother of the plaintiff
Pierre , was taken from Prairie DuChien to St Louis ,
before the period assigned for the surrender of the posts,
and that during her detention at that placed, it was
in the possession of British Subjects. Then she never
Could have acquired any rights under the ordinance of 1787,
and consequently the instructions asked by the plaintiff
in error, should have been given.

Judgment reversed and Cause Remained.

Tomkins I.

Whether the laws of Canada
permitted Slavery there, is a fact for a jury to find,
and not for the Circuit Court of St. Louis to decide,
there laws, if there be such, bring to in foreign laws.

State of Missouri Sct

I Hampton Boon , clerk
of the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri , do hereby ceritfy, that
the above & foregoing opinion of the Supreme Court aforesaid delivered at
the January Term of said Court (1845) in the case of G. S. Chouteau
vs Pierre (of color) in correctly copied from the original opinion
now on file in my office.

Review under my hand and seal of said Court
at office in the City of St , the 18th
day of February in the Year of Our Lord
One thousand Eight hundred and forty five.

H. L. Boon

Supreme Court of Missouri , January Term 1845

Gabriel S. Chouteau
vs
Pierre (of Color)

Appeal from St Louis Circuit Court

Now at this day come 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 judgment aforesaid in form aforesaid, by the circuit court
be reversed, unnulled; and for nought held and esteemed and the cause
remanded, to the said Circuit Court , for further proceedings in conformily
to the opinion of this court herein delivered.

State of Missouri Ss

I Hampton L. Boon clerk of the Superme Court
of the State of Missouri , do hereby certify, that the foregoing judgment
of the Supreme Court aforesaid rendered at the January term (1845)
in the case of Gabriel S . Chouteau , against Pierre (of color), is correctly
copied from the Records of said Court, now remaining in my Office.

Given under my hand, with the seal of said Court
affixed, at Offices in the City of Jefferson ,
the second day of May A D. 1845 H . L. Boon

Pierre (of Color)
vs
Gabriel Chouteau

In the Circuit Court
To the November Term 1845

And now on this day the Plaintiff
by his attornies Hall & Field and .
The Court for a to take the
depositions of witnesses in the above. case
in the city of Montreal in
the province of Canada to
be in on the trial in
the above cause

Hall Field & Hudson
Attoney for Plft

Pierre (of Color
vs
Gabriel Chouteau

Motion for 24

filed June 30th 1845 John Ruland Clrk

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

Know Ye, that we, in confidence of your prudence and fidelity, do, by these presents, authorize 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 Pierre
a man 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 purpose
by the said plaintiff or his
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 par-
ties; 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 pro-
duced or proven, or be referred to by the witness, you are to describe the same in his exami-
nation, 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 con-
venient, such authentication and proof of your official character may be made by the certifi-
cate and seal of the clerk of any court of record of any county of the State, District or Ter-
ritory 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 commissioned as
such. And you will return the same and all exhibits produced to you, annexed hereto, care-
fully closed up and under your seal, directed to the Clerk of the Circuit Curt in and for the
county of St. Louis , Missouri , with the names of the said parties litigant endorsed thereon,
with all convenient speed.

Witness, Johh Ruland , Clerk of our said Circuit Court ,
at the city of St. Louis , this eighth day of
October in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and forty five. Jno. Ruland Clerk C. C.

I John Samuel McCord , of the city of Montreal in
the district of Montreal , in the Province of Canada , Esquire, one of Her/ Majesty's Circuit Judges for the said district of Montreal , do certify
and return that in as much as no Interogatories are annexed to the
within commission, and no other official and authentic means are offered
whereby the matter in controversy between the within named parties may be
ascertained I am unable to execute, and do therefore return, the said commission
to the authority from where ii emanated in order that further action may
to had thereon

Given under my hand as the city of Montreal aforesaid
this twenty seventh day of October; in the year of Our Lord, one
thousand eight hundred and forty five in the presence and
with the consent of A. Ross , and R. S . In. Boudutte Esquire of Council for
the petition.JS McCord Clk

Province of Canada ,
District of Montreal ,
to wit

The undersigned, Samuel Wentworth Monk ,
William G. H . Coffin and Louis J . Papineau , joint Proto-
notary of Her Majesty's Court of Bench for the District of Montreal inthe the Province of Canada , do hereby Certify, that John Samuel McCord ,
whose signature is set and subscribed to the above return, is duly
commissioned and sworn as one of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges for the
said District of Montreal , and that to all art or instruments in
writing by him so signed full faith and credit are and ought to be
given in jurisdiction and thereout.

Given under our hand and the
Seal of the said Court of ,
as the Said City of Montreal , the twenty seventh
day of October in the year of our lord one
thousand Eight hundred and forty five

Pierre
vs.
Chateau

(opened and filed Nov. 26th
1845 John Ruland ClkPostage 10 paid by G . Field
atto

Pierre of color
vs
Gabriel S Chouteau

Circuit Court . Suit for Freedom

It is hereby between the in the above
case. That all Depositions legally taken in this case or which
may hear after be taken in
on the part of the plff or defendant. shall be
read in evidence and used in the trial
of Louis against Chouteau , and in all
other cases; pending in St Louis County to him
the children of Rose formerly held in slavery,
by Auguste Chouteau deceased; are suing for
their freedom in which the attornies to this
agreement are employed as counsel for
the respectivepartiesAnd it is furtheragreed
that any Royal proclamation of the
of Great Britain in relation to the government
of Canada or; averyact of parlament of
Great Britain or the province of Canada
so far as the same may effect or relate to
the subject of slavery in Canada may be
used in evidence in the cases above
provided the said proclamation and
slaves: are un to be found in any;
book.. which may be adjusted by the court
upon inspection to be genuine and if said
proclation or acts of either of the aforesaid parliaments to be used an not found pu
blished in. The aforesaid, then & copy of said proclamation certified under
the great . of the manner of
shall with them to be had in
evidence by

February 7. 1846 Spalding & Tiffany
attys of Hall & Field
atties for pltf Henry L.Cobb Atty. for.al

This memorandum agreement relates to
no depositions what have
been or may be taken in Canada

Ss..

Hall & Field Henry L.Cobb
Atty for others,

Pierre (of color)
vs
Gabriel S.Chouteau

Agreement of Attys.

Filed 11 Feby 1846 Jno Ruland Clerk

Pierre , of color
vs
Gabriel S.Chouteau

Tresspass. In the Circuit
Court of Saint Louis
County, State of Missouri To Gabriel S.Chouteau ,

You are hereby
justified that depositions of the witnesses, to be
read in evidence in the above cause on the
part of the plaintiff will be taken at
the office of Frederich Griffin (Advocate)
in the City of Montreal , Canada East,
on the twenty fifth day of March 1846
between the hours of nine 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 finished.

Field & Hall ,
Attys for Plff.

Served the within notice in the county of Saint Louis on the
7th day of January 1845, by delivering a true copy of the same
to Gabriel S.Chouteau the within named defendant,

William Millburn ShffBy B.S.Garland DSheff Fee 50 $

Pierre , of color
vs
Gabriel S. Chouteau

Notice to take
depositions

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

Know Ye, that we, in confidence of your prudence and fidelity, do by these presents,
authorize 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 Pierre
(of color)
is plaintiff, and Gabriel S. Chouteau
defendant, all
and every such person, and at such time and place, as shall be named to you for that purpose
by the said plaintiff his
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 par-
ties; 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 pro-
duced or proven, or be referred to by the witness, you are to describe the same in his exami-
nation, 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 con-
venient, such authentication and proof of your official character may be made by the certifi-
cate and seal of the clerk of any court of record of any county of the State, District or Ter-
ritory 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 commissioned as
such. And you will return the same and all exhibits produced to you, annexed hereto, care-
fully 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 fifth day of
February in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and forty six. Jn. Ruland Clerk C. C.

InExecution of this Commission
apprears by the

Pierre (of color) Plaintiff,
vs
Gabriel S.Chouteau , Defendant

In notice of the annexed commission
issued from the Circuit Court for the County of
S Louis in the State of Missouri , for the
examination of witnessed on behalf of the
Plaintiff in a certain cause pending in the
said Court, wherein Pierre (of color)is
Plaintiff, and Gabriel S.Chouteau is Defendant,
the said Commission date at the City of
St Louis the fifth day of Februarylastpast
and district "To any Judge, Justice of the Peace,
or other judicial officer of Canada East," to wit
of the eastern part of the Province of Canada
heretofore constituting the Province of Lower
Canada , I, John Sammel Mc Cord , of
the City of Montreal in the District of Montreal ,
in the said eastern part of Canada , Esquire
on of the Circuit Judges in and for the said
district of Montreal , together with Frederick
Griffin , of the same place, advocate, of counsel
for the plaintiff, and Robert S.M .,
Esquire of the same place, advocate, of counsel
for the Defendant, did affirm at the office
of the said Frederick Griffin in the said City of
Montreal on the twenty fifth day of March
one thousand eight hundred and forty six, at noon
persuant to the notice annexed to the said
Commission; The Commission read:- Mr. Griffin
then stated his in ability to and the

improbability of his being able, for some days to
come to the attendance of two certain
witnesses, the one by reason of theinfermity of
health, and the other by reason of his judicial occu
pations during the present session of the Court of
for the said District of Montreal
and also that he, Mr. Griffin , required further time
to certain official documents to her
produced on the Plaintiff's behalf; and Mr. Griffin
therefore requested an adjournment of the proceedings
for a few days;- consented to that
adjournment;- all further proceeings under the
said annexed commission are accordingly by me
adjourned to the ninth day of April next at
noon

J . M cordClerk

By consent

R.S ..
Atts for G. S.Chouteau


Persuant to the adjournment above stated the Counsel
of the parties duly me and forthwith to
the town of the James Reid is this City, for the
purpose of his examination, his bodilyhealth not
permittings his examination elsewhere.

Montreal 9: april 1846. J.M . Cord Clerk

Depositions of witnesses produced,
sworn, and examined at
in the city of Montreal in
Canada East before me, John Samuel McCord , of the said City of Montreal , Esquire, one of the Circuit
Judges in and for the District of Montreal in Canada
East, in a certain cause now pending in the Circuit
Court for the County of St laouis in the State of
Misspouri , between Pierre (of Colour) Plaintiff, and
Gabriel S . Chouteau , Defendant, on the part of
the Plaintiff:—

The Honourable James Reid , of lawful
age, being produced, sworn and examined, deposeth
and saith, as follows:—

Question 1 — What is your name and position,, and where to
you reside?

Answer My name is James Reid - Chief Justice of
the court of Kings Bench at Montreal , where I
now reside.

Question 2 Do you know the parties in this cause, and are
you interested in the suit?

Answer I do not know the parties, nor either of them, nor
am I intrested in the event of the suit.

Question 3 How long have you resided in Canada , and are you wellaquainted with the laws and
usages of Canada ?

answer I have resided fifty eight years in Canada ,
during which time I have had occasion to become
aquainted with the laws and usages of that Country .

Question 4-What judicialsituation did you hold in
Canada , and how long did you hold the same?

Answers-I have held the situation of one of the
Justices of the before mentioned Court of Kings
Bench for the District of Montreal ,
for seventeen years, and , the situation
of Chief Justice of the same Court, for nearly
fifteen years.

Question 5-When did Canada pass from the dominion
of the French Government to that of the
British Government?

Answers - Canada came under the dominion of the
British Government by capitulation to the
British arms in September 1760, and the
Country was afterwards ceded to Grant
Britain by treaty of Peace in 1760.

Question 6- Was slavery of negroes, or other persons,
recognized and allowed by law in Canada , which
the country was under the dominion of the French
Government?

Answers-Slaverywould appear to have been practised in
Canada to a cerain extent which under the
dominion of the French Government, although I
can find no law by which it was thenintroduced or
recognized previous to the year 1709, when, byan
Ordinance of Mr. Randot , the of the
Colony , permission was given to the colonists to
purchasenegroes and panis, from the Indians, on
the principle that they would prove useful in
the cultivation of the soil.-This Ordinance would
seem to have been made in order to confirm a
practice which had previouslyexisted, but for
which there was no law, by authorizing slavery in
the particular casereferred to:-the

relies also upon the principle he invokes that

2

3

all colonies should be placed upon the same
footing in regard to slavery as those in the West
Indies . Slavery formed no part of the public
law of France but required the legislators authority of
the Crown for its establishment and accordingly
we find, that by this authority, it was introduced
into the West India Islands by the
Code Noir in
1685.— It has been doubted, whether Mr. Randot ,
or any governor of a particular colony, could
establish therein, such a general principle of
further law, as slavery, without the special authority
of the Crown , and it may be informed, from the
expressions used, that Mr. Randot was under this
impression by his stating that he made the above
Ordinance
sous le bon plaisir de sa majesté.”
which bon plaisir I see no when noticed or
confirmed. It is certain, however, that from the
time of this Ordinance and even before, slavery
of negroes and Panis , as therein stated, had been
practised, and was still continued in the colony in
1736, as by an Ordinance of Mr. Hocquart, the then

, of the first of september of that year a
form for the emancipation of slaves is established
and directed to be observed. So for the existence if
not the legality, of slavery would appear..

Question 7- Did any of the articles of capitulation granted to
the conadians upon their surrender of Canada
to the British arms in September 1760
to slaves then in Canada ?

Crowns- The forty seventh which reformed to them particularly.

To Question 8- Did that article extend to such of the Children
of the negroes and
Panis therein mentioned as
were born in Canada after the capitulation?

Answers- I think not Children born under the British
dominion, where slavery is not known or
cannot be considered as slaves, whatever their
parents may have been.

To Question 9- Did any and what change in the civil and
criminal laws of Canada take place on the
capitulation of the Country to the British arms
in September 1760?

Answers- In regard of the French and Canadians, the
laws and customs of the Country , as formerly
administrated and recognized, were temporarily
continued.- In regard of merchants and traders,
and others, I believe, the laws of England prevailed.

To Question 10- What was the legal effect of the Kings Proclamation of the seventh of October 1763,
on slavery in Canada ?

Answers- I consider the legal effect of that proclamation
was, to carry with it the abolition of slavery
of every friend in the Colony ;- the exception contained
in the forty-seventh article of the capitulation
of september 1760, referred only to such

Negroes and
Panis , as were then in existence,
but could not be extended to their issue
subsequently born.

To Question 11- Was slavery ever afterwards (except in
regard to the negroes and panis mentioned in
the 47th article of the capitulation,)
by law, or as being legal in Canada ?

Answer- As for as I know and believe, slavery
after that period (except in the cases referred to
was never recognized, nor considered as
being legal in Canada .

3

5

To Question 12-Was the Kings Proclamation of the seventh of
October 1763 ever repaled?

Answers-It was repealed by the Act of the British
parliament 14 George III, chapter 83, by which a
new system of jurisprudence was introduced
. The administration of the criminal law of England
in criminal matters, and of the law of Canada in
civil matters, having been thereby established, and
came into operation in May 1775.

To Question 13. Was the question of the legality or nonlegality
of slavery in Canada ever tested in any of the
courts of justice in Canada - and, if yes, what
was the result of the test?

Answers - I am informed that a case was detrmined in
the Court of Kings Bench at Montreal , and that
by the Judgment of that Court of the Eighteenth
of February 1800, on Robin alias Robert , who
had been arrested as a slave for having his master, was brought before the Court on a
writ of
Habeas Corpus, and discharged, on
the ground, that no slavery existed in Canada .

The Witness was then, by Dr., the
Defendants Counsel, cross-examined, and
answered as follows: -

Cross -question 1 - Were not the Intendants under the French
Government in Canada invested with certain
legislative as will as Judicial powers?

Answers - I believe they were-

Cross -question 2 -What were the terms and language of
Mr.Intendant Randols' commission, in so far
as it invests him with legislative powers?

Answers - I cannot say, not having been able to see or know
the nature of his Commission.

Cross -question 3 - Do not the words “souslebonplaisir de sa Majesté”
usedin Mr. Randot's Ordinance of 1709, to which
you , signify
le bon plaisir, and would
not the Ordinance in question be in full force until

lebon plaisir of His Majesty to the contrary would
have been expressed?

Answers - The words “sous le bom plaisir de saMajesté” used by
Mr. Randot , in this Ordinaner of 1709, an not words
of , or of general use in any of the Ordinances
of the Intendants in Canada , and are not to be
found in any of the Ordinances of Mr. Randot ,
during his administration as Intendant, as far as
I can discover, except in the particular Ordinance
in question - As the King of France had the
power of control over the Colonial Legislature,
it is reasonable the to suppose, that when reference
was made by it to that , or “bonplaisir,”
the expression of such
bon plaisir necessary
to give validity to the Act or Ordinance that Sub
mitted especially on matters of importance arising
in the Colony . - The establishment of slavery was an
act of high authority in any legislation, and more
especially in such a subordinate Legislatare as
that vested in an Intendant in Canada , and my
opinion is, that Mr. Randot had no more power
to establish slavery in the Colony , than he had to
establish torture or death for any new offence
occurring there without the consent and authority
of the King .

Cross -question 4 - Did not Mr. the Intendant's Ordinance
of the 1st of September 1736assume the legal
existance of slavery in Canada under the French
Government?

7

Answers- The language of that Ordinance implies that he did.

To Cross - question 5- Is not the precise language of the 47th. article of
the capitulation, referred to in your examination
in Chief as follows:

“Act: XLVII- les negros et panis des deux sexes

“resteront en leur qualite d'esclares en la possession

"des Francais et Canadiens
a qui ils appartiennents;

“il leursera libre de les garder
a leur service dans

“de la Colonie, ou de les Vendre, et ils pourront aussi continuer a les

“faire
elever dans la religion romains,”-

“Accordé, excepté ceux qui auront
étés faits
“Prisonniers.”—

Answers- Yes.

Cross -Question 6- Do the articles of capitulation in question
contain any proviso or limitation as to slaves,
beyond the restriction as to prisoners, and did
the conquerors stipulate any thing as to the freedom
of the offspring of slaves.

Answers- The articles of capitulation contain no proviso
or limitation as to slaves, except as to prisoners nor
do the conquerors appear to have stipulated any
thing as to the offspring of slaves.-

To Cross -Question 7- In your examination in Chief you state that the
legal effect of the King's Proclamation of the 7th. of
October 1763 was to carry with it the abolition
of slavery of every kind would you please
state whether it had that effect in
Florida ,
the
Grenadines , Domonica, S. Vincent , and Tobago ,
which an therein mentioned, as well as the govern-
ment of Quebec ?

Answers- In my answer to the lenth introquatory in Chief,
I stated, that the effect of the proclamation of 1763
was the abolition of slavery of every find
in the Colony
having having a reference to the Colony of Quebec , as the only
one in question. - I cannot say what effect this procla-
mation may have had in the Floridas and other
places mentioned in this Interrogatory, not being ac-
quainted with the then existing laws in those places-
but I do not think that this proclamation could
have had the effect to abolish slavery there, if it
was then legally established and recognized.

To Crop- Question 8- Assuming that this proclamation abolished
slavery in the Government of Quebec , was not the
proclamation revoked by the 14th George III. ch. 83,
see: 4, and all and every the Ordinance and
Ordinances made under it annulled and madevoid?

Answers,- The British Statute 14th George III, ch. 83, s. 4, annulled
and made void all the provisions of the proclamation
of 7th October 1763, as to their subsequent operation,
in order to make way for a more efficient system
of Government, but this did not affect the rights
of Colonists who had become, and continued to be
British subjects under that proclamation, whereby
they became entitled to the full enjoyment of their
personal freedom, as much as to the air they
breathed.

To Cross - Question 9,- Are you aware of the existence of any
act of the parliament of Great Britain subsequently
to the Kings Proclamation adverted to, and posterior in
date to the Quebec act (14 Geo: III cap. 83.) recog-
nizing slavery in the Province of culture, and regulating
the importation of slaves therein.

Answers.- The British Statute 30 George III, Chapter 27, which
I Presume is alluded to, was made for encouraging
a particular descriptionof persons, citizens and
subjects of the United States and the territories and
and countires thereunto belonging, to settle with

their

8

9

their property and affects in His Majesty's territories
in America , into which they were required to imigrate
in British , owned by British subjects, and
having first obtained a licence from the Governor , or
Lieutenant Governor , of the Colony or Province for
that purpose. I do not consider this statute as
introducing slavery, or permitting its existence in
any part of this Colony , but in a very limited manner
to a particular description of persons only, and
under particular circumstances. The object
of the statute was to secure to immigrants the same
right over the property they brought with them
as they held by the laws of the Country from which
they came: this was necessary in regard of
negroes, as the British Parliament, aware that
no slavery existed in any of HisMajesty'sterritories
in North America , thought it advisable to hold
out an to persons coming from Countries,
where slavery was authorized, by securing to them
the services of these slaves they brought with them,
so that it is through this limited channel only that
this slavery, for the few years it existed, can be
traced to any part of this Colony . The Statute
referred to, which it constitutes a particular exception,
recognizes the general rule that no Slavery existed
in HisMajestey's North American Colonies.

To Cross -question 10 - Is not the Province of Quebec mentioned in the
30th George III, chap 27, that portion of the British
dominions in America now known as Canada ,
with some modifications of boundary?

Answers - It is

To Cross - question 11 - Was not the province of Quebec divided
by Royal Proclamation in 1791 into two provinces,

called

called Upper Canada , and Lower Canada ?

Answers, - It was.

To Cross -question 12-Are you aware of the passing of any law by
the Provincial Parliament of Upper Canada after
its into a separate province, recognizing the
institution of slavery, and providing for its general
abolition?

Answers - There is an act of the Provincial Parliament of
Upper Canada of 33rd III, chapter 7, made for
the purpose of preventing the further introduction
of slaves into that province. This Act appears
to have reference solely to the slaves brought into
that Province , in which immigrants were encouraged to
Settle, under the British Statute 30 George III, cap.
27, and provides for the abolition of a slavery
which had so partially existed.

To Cross -question 13-Are you aware of any similar act passed
by the legislature of Lower Canada , and if such an act existed would you not have a knowledge
of the fact?

Answers - I have no knowledge of any similar act of the
Legislature in Lower Canada . Had such an act
existed, it is probable I should have known it.
There would not seem to have been any need of
such an act in Lower Canada , as slavery was never
known to exist there under any of the British
Government. The immigrants who brought slaves
with them under the British Statute 30 George III,
ch. 27, appear to have gone to Upper Canada , where
the means of settlement were principally provided.

To Cross -question 14-Were not the laws and Institutions of the
Province of Quebec common to Upper and Lower
Canada , up to the Separate of those
Provisions in 1791?

10

Answers They were.

To Cross question 15: Have you any knowledge that any person
or persons has or have held and possessed one or
more slave or slaves in Canada ?- If yes please
to state by whom such slave or slaves were possessed
and at what time

Answer,- I have no such knowledge-
and further I say not-

Reid

I, John Samuel Mc Cord ,
Esquire, a Circuit Judge for the District of
Montreal , in Canada east, do certify that in
persons of the within commission and notice
the Honarable Reid , the deponent, was
examined, and his examination reduced to writing
and subscribed by the said deponent in my
person on the ninth day of april 1846
between the hours of nine of the clock a.m.
and six of the clock P.m. at the dwelling
house of the deponent in the said city of
Montreal given and certified on the day
and year last aforesaid

J Mc Cord

11

And thereupon adjoined to the
twenty seventh day of April instant, at seven o'clock
A.M., and then, by consent of parties, and for
their and my greaterconvenience, to meet
at at the Court house in this City -
Montreal

9th April 1846. J Mc Cord Clerk consent R. S.M .
of counsel for Defdt
of counsel for Pltf
12

12

Personal to the adjoinment
the parties counsel not me at the Court house in this
City, and to the examination of
witnesses on behalf of the Plaintiff as follows:-

13

Pierre , of Color, Plaintiff,
vs
Gabriel S Chouteau , Defendant

The Honorable Samuel Gale , of lawful age,
being produced on behalf of the plaintiff, was sworn
and examined, and deposeth as follows:-

To Question 1st- What is your name, and your profession, and where
do you reside?

Answers,- My name is Samuel Gale ;- I am one of the
Justices of the Court of Queen's Bench for the District
of Montreal in the Province of Canada ;- and I reside
in the city of Montreal .

To Question 2nd.- Do you know the parties, and are you interested in
the event of this suit?

Answers- No.

To Question 3rd.- How long have you resided in Canada , and are
you well acquinted with the laws and usages
of that country?

Answers- I have resided in Canada for upwards of
fifty years, and am acquainted with the laws
and usages of that Country .

To Question 4th- How long have your been a Judge of the Court of
Queen's Bench for the District of Montreal and how
long did you practise the law before you were
raised to the Bench?

Answers.- I was appointed one of the Justices, or Judge, of the
Court of King's Bench in the year 1834, and have
held my appointment from that time as Judge
to the present day, originally as judge of the Kings
Bench, and subsequently as judge of the
Queen's Bench, that is to say of the same court under different
applications;- I had practised the law twenty six
years before I was called to the Bench.

To Question 5th.- When did Canada pass from under the dominion
of the French Governemnt, to that of the British
Government?

Answers,- The Conquest of Canada was effected by the
British Government from the French
Government British
British Government in the years 1759 and 1760,
and the definitive cession of the Country from the
latter Government to the former was established
by the treaty of peace concluded between those
powers in February 1763.

To Question 6th.- Was slavery of negroes, or of other persons recognized
and allowed by law in Canada , while the country
was under the dominion of the French Government?

Answers.- I belive that a modified system of slavery
respecting negroes, and some others, was de defacto
exercised in Canada in various instances while
the country remained under the French dominion
but I cannot undertake to say, that such
de facto
exercise of slavery was justifiable under sufficient
ligitimate enactment, and a correct interpretation
of the laws as they then stood;- my opinion is the
contrary.

To Question 7th. Did any and what charge take place in the laws
of Canada when the Country came under the dominion
of the British Government, and what was the effect
of such change — firstly, in regard to negroes and
Panis then in existences and secondly in regard to

Negroes and
Panis subsequently born in the County?

Answers,- Several changes took place in the law of Canada
when the country came under the dominion of the
British Government. Among others, the rights of
the subjects or inhabitants became more extensive,
and the British public or national law and
rights superceded the French. The legal &
effect of the changes would, in my opinion, have
been
per se (unless barred by direct stipulations
to the contrary,) to extinguish slavery, and put an
and to any pretended right of man in his fellow
creatures as forming part of his goods, chattls, or
property, and would have extended (stipulations

expressly

14

15

expressly to the contrary excepted,) as will to abolish
slavery, and to give freedom to the negroes and panis
then in existence, as to the same effect in regard to
negroes and panis subsequently borm in the country.
The law of England bestows on all its subjects, of every
color, equal rights to personal freedom, and legal
protection.

To Question 8th.- Did the 47th article of the capitulation of Canada
to the British arms, in September 1760, extend to such
of the Children of the negroes and Panis therein
mentioned as were boon in Canada after the
capitulation?

Anwers,- The 47th. article of the capitulation in September
1760 did not extend to such of the children of the
negroes and Panis therein mentioned as were borm
in Canada after the capitulation. And my
opinion further is- that the same 47th. article
could not have legitimately been enforced after
the treaty of peace of February 1763, even as to
those negroes and Panis previous by held in slavery,
and who continued in Canada , for a capitulation is
only a temporary act or agreement by commanders,
or subordinate powers, subject to be afterwards
modified, changed or set aside by the mutual agreement
under a treaty of peace of the Sovereign powers on
both sides. The treaty of peace therefore superceded
the capitulation, and the treaty of peace did not
sanction such a violation of the British public law
as would have been established by a continuation
of Slavery in Canada , and the powers of no military
commander, as such, could extend to establish, per-
manently, a law at variance with the public law of
the sovereign, or sovereignty, under which he served.

To Question 9th.- Was Slavery (except of the negroes and Panis
mentioned in the said 47th. article,) recognised by
the the law of Canada , at any time subsequent to the
capitulation of September 1760?

Answers.- Slavery was never recognized by the law of Canada
at any time subsequent to the capitulation of
September 1760.

To Question 10th.- Was the Kings Proclamation of the 7th. of October
1763 ever revoked or repealed, - and if it was, by
what law, and from what date was it so repealed?

16

Answers.- Some of the provisions of the proclamation of the
7th. of October 1763- such as those relating to the civil
Government of Canada , (then the Province of
Quebec ;) and the powers of the Governor and
other civil officers thereof, were revoked and
made void from the first day of May 1775, by
the statute of the British parliament, 14th. George
the third, chapter 83, papers in the proceeding year,
and commonly called `the Quebec Act.'

To Question 11th. - Did the revocation or repeal of that proclamation
effect the revival of any laws respecting slavery in
existence before the Capitulation?

Answers.- No revocation, annullment, or change of the
Proclamation of 1763 ever had the effect of revising
any laws respecting slavery in existence before the
capitulation of 1760, or of reviving or establishing
slavery in Canada .

To Question 12th. - Was the legality of the Slavery of Negroes, Panis ,
or other persons, were tested in the Courts of Justice
in Lower Canada ,- and if it was - what was the
result of the test?

Answers.- The question of the existence or legality of slavery
in Lower Canada of negroes or Panis has been brought
before the Courts of Justice there, and all Slavery
has been adjudged illegal in lower Canada . There was
a case decided in the Court of King's Bench, at
Montreal

16

17

Montreal , on the eighteenth of February in the year
one thousand Eight hundred, on the petition of a
negro called Robin , alias Robert , who was held as a
slave by on James Fraser : the Judgment of the
Court set him free. There have been cases of alike
description, before and since, as I belive; and the
illegality of slavery in Lower Canada is a matter too
clear, and too well established to admit of
doubt, altho this laws, in that particular, are the
same as they have been ever since the cession of
the Province by the Treaty of Peace of 1763.

To question 13th Are any or either of the Judges who described
the case to which you refer now alive?

Answer,- I belive the Judges who decided the case of the
negro Robin alias Robert before mentioned, won the
Chief Justice monk, and the Judges Ogden and
:- I have a personal knowledge of the death
on one of them, namely, Judge , who died
in Montreal , and the other two died in England ,
as I have understood and belive, a number of
years ago.

(The witness then answered to the
crop- questions of . , the Defendants'
Counsel as follows:-)

To Cross question 1- Was not the modified form of slavery which
in your examination in Chief you say existed defacto
in Canada under the French Government
continued for some years- and how many years, to
the best of your knowledge, after the conquest, and
therefore under the British Government ?

Answers- I Cannot say that the modified system of
slavery which existed de facto under the Franch Governtemt, mentioned in my examination in Chief,
continued de facto in Canada after the treaty of
peace, altho it is probable that several of those

Who

who before were held in slavery continued to be so
held if they made no application to the proper
anothrities to be discharged, or declared free. The
agency of the Courts of Justice of would work
exercised between individual and individual
unless demanded; and it is therefore most likely
that there were instances of persons called slaves, who
continued to remain as such with the persons who
were called their masters, long after the conquest of
Canada and while it continued one Provience . Such
voluntaryacquiescence in servitude might be
owing to variousmotives- such as affection- or ignorance
of their rights- or fear. But no legalinferrence
could be drawn from the exercise of such assumed
ownership on the one hand, which no objection was
raised on the other. In the thirty first year of the
of george the third (A.D.1790) a statute of
the Parliament of Great Britain was passed
for the division of what had, until then, been
the Provience of Quebec , otherwise called the
Provience of Canada , into two separate Provinces
of which one was called Upper Canada , and the
other Lower Canada . And two years afterwards
(this division of the Provience of Canada having in
that interval him effected,) the legislator of the
Province called Upper Canada passed a statute
(33 III chap:7.) confirming the service, during
life, of such negroes, and others, as had been
previously bought or brought into Upper Canada
under a licence from Governor , but expressly
declaring at the same time that no negro, or other
person who should afterwards come or be bought
into Upper Canada , and no child thereafterborn
of a negro or other person should be free after the age of
twenty five years.

To

18

19

To Cross question 2nd - Did not the Intendants under the French Govern-
ment in Canada possess legislative as well
as Judicial - & administrative powers?

Answer - In Intendants under the French Government
in Canada , in virtue of their commissions,
legislative powers to a certain extent, as well as judicial
and administrative powers.

To Cross - question 3rd Were not the Ordinances by them made under
and by virtue of their Commissions declared as
valid and binding as if “imanes de nos coeurs
“souverains, touts prises a partie
edits, ordonnances, et autres a u contraire,
and are not the
french terms quoted, the language
of the Intendants' commission?

Answers,- The Ordinances of the Intendants, when made in
virtue of their commission, and within its legal
limits, were valid and bindiing according to the
French Terms quoted in this cross-interrogating, and
the terms so quoted from a part of the terms or
language used in the Commission of the Intendants,
which, however, are not to be taken alone, but in
connexion with the rest of the context, or other portions
of the Commission. The powers of the Intendants were
limited to the extent of the commission under which
they were appointed, and their commissions required
them to act in conformity to the Royal Edits and
Ordinances for France , and according to the custom
of Paris , and could not, in my opinion, be interpreted
by legitimate and legal construction to authorize
the Intendants to pass laws inconsistent with the
public law and public rights of subjects, as they
existed in France , and in the custom of Paris , where
slavery would not have heen in accordance with
the laws. To authorize the Intendants, or others, to
give a legitimate sanction to the establishment of
Slavery

Emanatang from
Mr Sovreign County
all
Edicts ordinances &
other things to the contrary
notwithstanding
slavery in Canada , would have been inconsistent with
the public rights of the subjects or dwellers in the
custom of Paris , and must have required, in my opinion,
express and positive authority to that effect. Such
express authority was not conferred by their commissions.
In intendents and others having legislative authority in
Canada , were appointed, it must be considered, according
to their commission, to uphold and preserve the public
rights of all subjects and indwellers in conformity with
the custom of Paris , and not to abolish their rights as
regarded innocent persons of particular classes or
races or of peculiar colour.

To Cross -question 4th. Were any-and what required by any-
and what ordinance in Canada under the French
dominion for the manumission or emancipation
of slaves?

Answers,- An edict or ordinance of Mr. , one of
the Intendants of Canada in 1736, required masters
who gave freedom or emanicipation to their slaves,
to do so by written document passed before public
notorius, and declared all other forms of emancipation
null and of no effect. An Edict or ordinance of a
previous Intendant, Mr. Randot , had been antice-
dently paassed, which declared, among other things,
that it would be useful to the Colony to hold negroes
, and Indians of a distant nation called Paris , as
slaves, and therefore that the negroes and panis who
had been, or might be bought, should be held by the
purchasers as their slaves. This is an ordinance
under which slavery existed de facto in Canada ,
while under the French Government, the establishment
whereof, as I have already stated, exceeded, as
, the limits of the legal authority confirmed upon the
Intendants, and would, consequently, not have been
regarded as binding under a correct and legitimate
interpretation of the law.

20

21

To Cross -question 5th.- Is there any thing in the language of the treaty
of Peace of 1763 “modifying, changing, or setting aside
any particular article of the capitulation of Septem-
ber 1760?

Answers,- The Language of the treaty of peace is such as to
cede the Province , in full soverignty, to the king and
Crown of Great Britain , without any conditions as
respected those in habitants who choose to remain
in it, except that they were to have the free exercise
of the Roman Catholic religion, in so far as the laws
of Great Britain might permit. Any article of
the capitulation therefore which was not in accordance
with the perfect sovereignty and right of legislation
of the Crown and legislature of Great Britain , or was
inconsistent with the public law thereof, must have
been modified by the treaty of Peace, which rendered
all the French inhabitants, who thought fit to continue
in Canada, British subjects, entitled to the freedom
and privileges, and subject to the duties of such, and
having a right to retain and hold real estates and
chattels in all things which the English public law
allowed to be a legitimate object of property, but subject
to the operation of such public law, and to the legislative
of Parliament. By the proclamation also of His Brit -
annic Majesty, issued a few months after the treaty of
peace in 1763, it was declared that all persons inhabiting
in, or resorting to Canada , might consider in the Royal pro-
tection for the enjoyment of the benefit of the laws of England .

To Cross Question 6th. Did not the British Statute of the 14th George III.
chapter 83, commonly called the Quebec act; continue
in full force all the laws and customs of Canada ,
and declare expressly “that in all matters of controversy
relative to property and civil rights, resort shall be
had to the laws of Canada "?

Answers.- No- that Statute did not continue in full force all
the laws and customs of Canada . It however declared
that, in all matters of controversy relative to property and
civil rights, “resort should be had to the laws of Canada ,
but the term “property” used in that statute does not mean
man, or a
fellow creature; and the blacks or
panis
under the English public law, are just as much entitled
to
“civil rights” as their white neighbour.

To Cross - question 7th. Are you aware of the existence of any, and what
act of the Parliament of Great Britain Subsequently
to the Quebec act, regulating the importation of
slaves into the Province of Quebec ? - and, if there
is such an act, or ever was one, then - when was it
repeald?

Answers,= Iam aware of an act passed by the Parliament
of Great Britain in the Thirteeth year of the reign
of George the thiird (chapter 27,) authorizing settlers
from the United States , under a license from the
Governor , to import into the Province of Quebec ,
and other places, negroes and household furniture,
with some other things, to a certain amount, free of
duty. But this act which declares that negroes may
be so imported did not declare that they should be
slaves in the Province of Quebec , otherwise called the
Province of Canada , after they were so imported:- if did
not therefore alter the illegal nature of Slavery under
the pre existing law of Canada . And, if slaves were so
imported while the Province of Quebec , or Canada ,
existed as a single province, under the dominion of
England , they could legally, as I believe no more have
continued slaves there, than they would continue slaves
in England , supposing that a statute should declare
that negroes, with a certain quantity of baggage, might
be imported into England free of duty. It is true,
that after the Province of Canada was divided
into two Provinces, one of the divisions thereof,
namely, the Province of Upper Canada , passed an
act (the 33rd George III. chapter 7.) which confirmed, as
I have stated in a former answer, the service during
life of such negroes and others as had before been
bought or brought under licence to upper Canada ,

but

22

but expressly declared that none who should
afterwards come or be brought or born in Upper
Canada should be subject to such service. The
provisions of this act of Upper Canada (33 Geo. III. c. J.)
were indispersable, as I conceive, to render legal the
servitude for life of the negroes, or others, bought or
brought under license into Upper Canada - but did
not extend to the other division of the former Province
of Quebec or Canada , called the Province of Lower Canada .

To Cross question 8th. In your examination in chief you state that
slavery was never recognized by the law of Canada
subsequent to the capitulation of September 1760,-
Is the provincial act of the 33rd George III. Chap. 7, passed
in Upper Canada in 1793, a part of the law of Canada ,
or is it not?

Answers.- When I spoke in my examination in chief of the
law of Canada , I spoke of the law of the Province of
Canada or Quebec , not of the law of what was a
different Province called Upper Canada , altho formed
out of a portion of what had been the territory of
Canada . I should not call a statute of the state
of Maine since its separation from Massachusetts ,
a law of Massachusetts , altho it be a law of what once
formed part of the territory of Massachusetts . The
provincial act, 33 George III. chap: 7, passed in the
Province of Upper Canada , after its division from the
Province of Canada , was never a part of the law of
the Province of Canada or Quebec . The last named
Province had then ceased to exist, - nor was any law of
similar import or effect to the last mentioned Upper
Canadian statute ever passed in what constituted the
other and larger division of the Province of Canada , namely
the Province of Lower Canada . The similarity or partial
identity of the names of the Provinces does however
occasion some danger of apparent ambiguity or confusion,
unless prevented by much case and precision. The two
Provinces of Lower & Upper Canada have again been
reunited, under the name of the Province of Canada , by
the statute of the Imperial Parliament, 304 Victoria ,
chapter 35, and once more form one government.

To Cross questin 9th. Was not the Province of Upper Canada a part of the
original Province of Quebec , which comprised also Lower
Canada , and does not the Upper Canada act, 33 George III.
chaps. 7, legislate for a state of things or institutions that
must have been co-extensive with the Province of Quebec ,
and therefore existing in Lower, as well as Upper Canada ?

Answers,- The Province of Upper Canada , as appears by my
preceding answers, was a part of the former Province of
Quebec , whose territory comprised also Lower Canada
and the Provincial act 33 George II. chap. 7, in this
cross-interrogatory referred to legislated for a state of
things or institutions-not indeed co-extensive with the
former Province of Quebec , (for upper Canada had
already abrogated the French laws, and substituted the
English laws as the rule of decision,) but for a state of
things or institutions under which, as I believe, the
negroes and panis were entitled to the same rights as
they were in the rest of the former Province of Quebec ,
namely, Lower Canada . And by this Provincial
act of Upper Canada certain negores and others
previously bought and imported under license were
deprived of rights during their own lives, as I have
before stated, whereas no such act was ever passed
by Lower Canada :

To Cross . question 10th. - Have you any personal knowledge - and what
knowledge of the particulars of the case of Robin
alias Robert , or of any other case which you believe
exists of the like description, and of the grounds of
the Judgment?

Answers,- I have no personal knowledge of the particu-
lars of the case of Robin alias Robert , other than
having seen the record of the proceedings and Judgment
I knew two or three individuals when a child who

24

25

Objected to
sustained

Were held, as I understood from themselves and others,
as slaves, but who were induced to apply to the Courts
of justice to be declared free, and , as I also understood,
were so declared. One of these, as nearly as I recollect,
was called Phillis , and lived at Sorel in this District , and
then was also another, whose name I cannot call to
mind. these things are honour, as I belive, fifty years
bygone or more, and I do not now recollect having
myself seen any more recent instances of persons residing
in Lower Canada who were held as slaves.

To the 11th last Cross - question,- Have you any recollection of the de facto
existence of slavery in any part of Canada - or
have you not hered of slaves being owned and held
long after the conquest by inhabitations of this Province ?

Answer,- I have no recollection on the subject beyond
what is contained in the last and precedinganswers.
I have heard of slaves being owned and held in the
Province of Canada after the conquests but but I never
heard of any one retained in slavery in Lower Canada
subsequent to the division of Canada into two Provinces
by the act of the Parliament of Great Brittain of 1790, if
they applied to the Courts to be discharged.

And further I say not.

Saml Gale

I, John Samuel Mc , Cord , Esquire a
Circuit Judge for the District of Montreal in
Canada East, do certify that the Honorable
Samuel Gale , the deponent, was examined,
and his examination reduced to writing and
subscribed by the deponent in my
presence, on the twenty seventh day of April 1846,
between the hours of nine of the clock a.m. and
six of the clock p.m., at the court house in the
City of Montreal , given and certified on the
day and year last aforesaid.

J S M . Cord . .

26

Pierre (of color) Plaintiff
vs
Gabriel S.Chouteau , Defendant

Samuel Wentworth Monk , of the City of Montreal ,
in Canada East, Esquire, of lawful age, a witness
produced on behalf of the Plaintiff, was sworn and
examined, and deponeth as follows:-

I do not know the parties in this cause, nor
am I interested in the event of this suit:- William C.
H.Coffin, and L.I., of Montreal
Esquire, and I, am Prothonotaries of the Court of Queen's
Bench for the District of Montreal , in this Province :- we
are commissioned together as jointProthonotary, "and,
in that capacity, we have the custody of the archives
of the Court formerly known as the Court of Kings Bench,
and now known as the Court of Queen's Bench. I have
never had occasion to study the question of the legality
or illegality of slavery in Canada , but from the registers
of the Court of Kings Bench for the District of Montreal
I am aware of a Judgment having him rendered
in the said Court on the eighteenth day of february
in the year one thousand Eight hundred, by which a
negro or blackman named Robin alias Robert , who had
been clamied as a slave, was set free. The original
writ of habias corpus and return thereto are in the
archives of the said Court in my custody. I produce,
to be annexed to this my deposition, copies of the said
writ and return, and of the proceedings had thereon as
they appear in the register of the Court in my charge.
There are true copies, and as such are duly certified
under my official signature, and the seal of the
Court of Queen's Bench for this District . The three
Judges who appear to have heard and decided the

case

case were Chief Justice Monk , Justice Panet
and Justice Ogden they an all dead. Chief Justice
Monk was my uncle. John Reid , the DeputyClerk of
the Crown who signed the original writ of habiascorpus
was well known to me he died several years ago.
Perry the attorney who out the writ, and
Jacob Kuhn the Gaoler to whom it was directed are
both dead, and so also are the three justices of the peace
named in the Gaoler's return to the said writ. I have
no knowledge of the James who appears to have
claimed the said Robin alias Robert as his slave.
who appeared as Counsel for is, I
believe, still living at but very old and infirm.

( Cross examined by the
Defendant's counsel.)

Except in the before mentioned case of
Robin alias Robert , I am not aware of the question
of slavery having ever been in the courts of
Justice in Lower Canada that other cases
might be found in the archives in my custody but
unless some resonable clue thereto be
(as was done in Robin's case) I cannot undertake to
seek for them with any prospect of success There is
nothing in the record to show the grounds upon which
the judgement in Robin's case was renderedbeyond
what appeares upon the face of the documents them-
selves. such a judgement mighthave been rendered
from insufficient proof on the part of Mr. Fraser who
claimed Robin as his slave. And further I say not.

I, John Samuel M . Cord , Esquire,
a Circuit Judge for the District of
Montreal in Canada East, do
certify that Samuel Wentworth
Monk , the deponent, was examined,
and and his examination rendered to writing,
and subscribed by him in my presence
on the twenty seventh day of April 1840,
between the hours of nine of the clock a.m.
and six of the clock p.m. at the Court
house in the City of Montreal . Given
and certified on the day and year last
aforesaid.

28

J S M Cord CtJ

28

Pierre (of Colour) Plt
vs
Gabriel S . Chouteau
Df

"written consent" produced by the plaintiff's counsel,, and
referred to in my annexed return.

J S M . Cord Ct J.

On Commissions from the Circuit Court
for the County of S Louis , in the State of
Missouri , for taking evidance in Canada
East in the case of

Pierre (of Colour,) plaintiff,
vs
Gabriel S . Chouteau
Defendants

In order to save both time and expense the
undersinged Counsel, attendingrespectively to the intents
of the plaintiff and Defendant, hereby consent that
the authorized printed copy of the statute of the parliament
of Great Britain passed in the fourteenth year of
the reign of King Geroge the third, chapter LXXXIIIintitled
"an act for making more effectualprovision for the
"government of the Province of Quebec in North America ;"
Commonly called the Quebec act,") to be formed in a
volume of printed statutes lately sent by the Defendants
counsel to the Defendant in Missouri , be held and considered
as duly proved by both the plaintiff and the Defendant,
and as annexed to of the two commissions above
metioned, both now in the course of before
John Samuel M . Cord Esquire a Circuit Judge for the
District of Montreal in Canada East and that the
said circuit judge be requested to include this consent
in his return to each of the saidCommissions In
witness where of we have signed these presents at the
City of Montreal in Canada East this twentyseventh the
day of April 1846. (in Duplication.)

R.S .
of Counsel for Defedt
of Counsel for Pltf

No. 1. George the third, by the Grace of God, of Great
Britain, France and Ireland , Defender of the
Faith and so forth.

To the keeper of the Common Gaol and
House of Correction at Montreal in the District of
Montreal . Greeting:

We command you that the body of Robin
alias Robert by whatever name he may be called in
our prison and House of Correction under your custody
detained as it is said together with the day and cause
of the caption commitment and detention of the
same Robin alias Robert you have before our Court
of King's Bench at Montreal aforesaid in the said
District immediately after the receipt of this writ
to do and receive what our same Bench shall
then and there consider concerning him in this
behalf and there this writ.

Witness the Honorable James Monk
our Chief Justice of our Bench at Montreal
aforesaid the fourth day of February in the fortieth
year of Our Reign.

(Signed) J. Reid Crown (signed). A. Perry , .

The execution of this writ appears by the annexed
schedule - to answers.

(Signed) Jacob Kuhn .

Montreal
L.S .

(signed) J. Monk , Ch. Just.
By virtue of an Ord
inance pased in the
twenty-fourth year
of the Reign of His
Majesty King George
the Third.

(Signed) Monk Ch. Just:

29

No. 2.

I. Jacob Kuhn , keeper of the Gaol and House of Correction
at Montreal in the District of Montreal do hereby Certify to Our
most Sovereign Lord the King that before the coming
of the foregoing writ on the thirty first day of January last past
Robin alias Robert a black therein mentioned was committed to
the common Gaol and House of Correction at Montreal in the said Dis-
trict under my custody by virtue of a warrant under the hands and
seals of Charles Blake , James Dunlop and Robert Jones , Esquires, three
of the Justices of our Lord the King assigned to keep the peace within the
said District , which said warrant is in the words following, to writ, - " District
"of Montreal , Charles Blake James Dunlop and Robert Jones , Esquires, three
"of the Justices of our Lord the King assigned to keep the peace within the
"said District . - To George Sairy, Constable , in the said District and to the
"keeper of the common Gaol and House of Correction at Montreal in the said
" District . - These are to command you the said Constable in His Majesty's name
“forthwith to convey and deliver into the custody of the said keeper of the said com
" mon Gaol and House of Correction the body of Robin a negro man and slave
“charged before us with having absented himself from the House of James Fraser of the
“ of Saint Mary near the said City of Montreal the owner, master and proprietor
“of him the said Robin without having obtained the leave or permission and
“the of the said James Fraser his master. And you the said Keeper are hereby
“required to receive the said Robin into your custody in the said commonGaol and
“House of Correction at Montreal and him there safely to keep tillthence
“delivered by the due order of law. Given under our hands and seals this thirty first
“day of January in the fortieth year of the Reign of His Magesty King George the
"Third. (Signed) Charles Blake , J. P. Robert Jones , J. P. James Dunlop J. P.”
And by virtue of another warrant under the hand and seal of James Dunlop
Esquire, one of the said Justices of our Lord the King assigned to keep the Peacewith
the said District which said last mentioned warrant is in the words and figure
following " James Dunlap Esq,, one of His Majesty's Justices of the Peace to Jacob
Kuhn , keeper of HisMajesty's Jail and House of Correction - you are hereby authorized and
“required to into the Prison or House of Correction a negro man named Robert
“who refuses to go home to his owner, and him safely to keep 'till he may be
“discharged or otherwise dealt with according to Law. Given under my
“hand and seal this thirty first day of January 1800 - (Signed) James
" Dunlop , J. P." - all which is the cause of the caption commitment and
detention of the same Robin alias Robert - the body of which said Robin alias
Robert I have now here present as by the said writ I am commanded.
attested at Montreal under my hand this fourth day of February in the
year of our Lord Christ one thousand eight hundred and in the fortieth
year of the Reign of our said Lord the King .

(Signed) Jacob Kuhn

Povince of Lower Canada
District of Montreal
Court of King's Brnch

No. 3. Tuesday the fourth day of February
one thousand eight hundred.

Present
Mr. Chief Justice
Mr. Justice Panet
Mr. Justice Ogden .

On the Memorial and
petition of Robin alias
Robert a Blackman

Mr Perry moves for a writ
of Habias Corpus, directed to the
Keeper of the common Gaol of this
District to bring up before this
Court the Body of one Robin alias Robert , a blackman,
together with the caue of his caption and detention;
ordered that a writ of habiascorpus do issue as prayed
returnable in Court .

Province of Lower Canada
District of Montreal
Cour duBanc du Roi

No. 4. Monday the tenth day of February
one thousand eight hundred.

Present
The Chief Justice
Mr. Justice Panet
Mr. Justice Ogden

Dominus
vs
James Fraser

On Habias Corpus to bring the Body
of one Robin or Robert a blackman.
The Gaoler made his return to the writ
and brought up the body. Mr Perry on the part of the
Prisoner showed cause why he ought not to be detained
in Goal. Mr. Ker on the part of the Defendant
replied. Ordered that the further hearing stand over to

Province of Lower Canada
District of Montreal
Court of King's Bench

No. 5. Tuesday the eighteenth day of
February one thousand eight hundred.

Present.
The Chief Justice
Mr. Justice Panet
Mr. Justice Ogden

Dominus .

Robin alias Robert
a Black man

On habias Corpus.
The Court having heard Mr.
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 W. Perry
on the part of the said Robin , alias Robert and
having seen the affidavits produceed by the said James
Fraser , It is considered that the said Robin alias
Robert be dicharged from his confinement under
the said Warrant.

Province of
Canada
District of Montreal
to wit

We Samuel Wentworth
Monk William Craigie
Holmes Coffin and Louis Joseph
Amedee Joint prothonotary of
HerMajesty's Court of Queen's Bench, for the district
of Montreal , in the province of Canada , do hereby
certify and attest that the foregoing two several copies
marked respectively “No 1.” & “No 2” are true copies
of an Original writ of habeas corpus, and the return
thereto, issued out of, and returned into the Court of
King's Bench for the said District of Montreal in the
session of the said Court held in the month of
Febraury in the year one thousand eight hundred
and the foregoing three several copies marked respec
tively “No. 3” - “No. 4”, & “No. 5”, are true copies extracted
from the registers, of the proceedings had in the said
Court, to final Judgment inclusively, in relation to the
said writ of habeascorpus; the said original writ
and return thereto; and the said registers remaining
among the archives of the said Court in our official
custody:-

Given under our hand and the
seal of the said Court of Queen's
Bench at the City of Montreal in the
District of Montreal aforesaid this
sixteenth day of April, in the year of
our Lords, One thousand eight hun-
dred and forty six, and of Her
Majesty's reign the ninth. Monk &

On Commission from Circuit Court
of St. Louis , State of Missouri
Pierre (of a colour) plff,
vs
Gabriel S. Chouteau , Dft.

Exhibit produced by Samuel
W . Monk Esq, a witness exam-
ined on behalf of the plaintiff,
& referred to in his deposition.
heretoannexed.

J. S . M Cord Ct. J .

Pierre of Color
vs
Gabriel S. Chouteau

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 evidence in the above cause,
on the part of the defendant will be taken at the office of Robert
S. M . Bouchette in the City of Montreal Canada East
in the County of and State of on the 6th
day of Aprilnext between the hours of 8 o'clock in the forenoon, and 6'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.

St. Louis Jany , 22. 1846 Spalding & Tiffany
attys. for deft.

Served the within notice in the County of
St. Louis this 22d day of January 1845 by
delivering a true copy to Henry L Cobb attoney
of record for Pierre of Collor

Wm
SheriffBy R deputy Fee 50 . by
&

Sheriff

St. Louis Circuit Court

Pierre of Color
vs
Gabriel S. Chouteau

Notice to take depositions

Served the within notice
in the County of St. Louis
this 27th day of January
1846 by delivering
Pierre the within named
plaintiff a true copy
thereof Wm Milburn
Sheriff

By R Dowling
Deputy

1

County Of St. Louis , Ss.
The State Of Missouri ,To any Judge, Justice of the Peace, or other Judicial Officer of the State of
Canada East a province of Great Britain Greeting.

Know Ye, that we, in confidence of your prudence and fidelity, do, by these presents,
authorize 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
Pierre - of color- is
plaintiff, and -
Gabriel S. Chouteau - 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- his -

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 you 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 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 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 commissioned 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, John Ruland , Clerk of our said Circuit Court ,
at the city of St. Louis , this third day of
February in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and forty six John Ruland Clerk C.C.

The execution of this Commission
appears by the Depositions and Documents
annexed4th May 1846

Cord

2

I, John Samuel Mc Cord , one of the
Circuit Judges within and for the District
of Montreal in the Province of Canada
do certify that in of the
annexed commission and came
before me at the office of Robert S .
esq. advocate,, in the City of Montreal in
the said District , in Canada East part of the
said Province of Canada , Adelaide
Chaboillez , Charles William Grant
de, JauvionDontayeLeCroix
Despond Patrick O'Keeffe and William ,
Elliott who were there by me sworn and
examined and such examination reduced
to writing and subscribed by them, respectively
in my presence, and their said deposition
are now herewith . And I do
further Certify that by consent of the Counsel
for the parties Plaintiff and Defendant
Mary Angelica widow of the
late Richard B.Hay was by me sworn
and examined at her own residence
in Dalhousie Square in this city and
such examination reduced to writing
and subscribed by her in my presence
and her said deposition is also
herewith returned

Given at the city of Montreal in Canada
East this thirtieth day of April 1846JS M . Cord Ct.J

And I the said John Samuel Mc Cord
do further Certify that the
signed by the Counsel of the parties

in the said cause and hereunto
annexed & No 1. and No 2,
acknowledged by the said Counsel
respectively in my presence, and
are subscribed by the genuine and
true signatures of the said
given under my hand at Montreal
aforesaid this 30th day of April 1846

JS M . Cord Ct J

3

Admission (No. 1) On Commissions from the Circuit Court for the
County of St Louis in the State of Missouri for
taking evidence in Canada East in the Case of

Pierre /of color/ Plaintiff
vs
Gabriel S Chouteau
Defendant

3

In order to save both time and expense, the
undersigned Counsel, attending respectively to the interests
of the Plaintiff and Defendant hereby Consent that the
authorized printed copy of the statute of the Parliament
of Great Britain passed in the fourteenth year of the reign
of King George the third, Chapter LXXXIII, intitled
"On act for making more effectual provision for the
government of the Province of Quebec in North America ".
Commonly Called," the Quebec Act to be found in a
volume of printed statutes lately sent by the Defendants counsel
to the Defendent in Missouri , be held and Considered
as duly proved by both the Plaintiff and the Defendant;
and as annexed to each of the two Commissions above
mentioned, both now in the Course of Execution before
John Samuel McCord , Esquire, a Circuit Judge
for the District of Montreal , in Canada East, and
that the said Circuit Judge be requested to include this
consent in his return to each of the said Commissions. In
witness whereof we have signed these presents at the
City of Montreal in Canada East, this twenty seventh day
of April 1846. (in Duplicate)


of Counsel for Pltf.S..
of Counsel for Dfdt

The foregoing is admissions no 1 is that refered
to
in my certificate of the date.

Montreal 30th day of April 1846JSC. Cord Ct.J

4

Pierre of Colour,
vs plff
Gabl . S . Chouteau
Defdt

Admission (No. 2) In the Circuit Court
of the County of St. Louis ,
State of Missouri

On a comission issued from the said
Circuit Court on the third day of Febuary
last for taking evidence in Canada
East on behalf of the Defendant in the
said Cause.

It is hereby admitted on the part and
behalf of the plaintiff in the said Cause
that the paper writing marked Defendants
Exhibit (A) and referred to in the evidence
of and Patrick O'Keeffe a witness
examinedunder the said
is a faithful transcript of "an act for
encouraging newsettlers in His Majesty's
Colonies and in
found in the statutes at large of great
Brittain & passed in the 30th year of
the reign of King geroge the third
chapter 27 and that Defendants
exhibit (B) annexed to the return
of the said commission contains a faithful
transcript of an act of the Legislature
of the late province of Upper Canada
entitled "we act to prevent the further
introduction of slaves and to the
term of contracts for servitude within
the province" which act was passed in
the 33rd year of the Reign of King
George the third, chapter VII as in the
said
said transcript is now
set forth & the is found in
the Revised statutes of the said
Province of Upper Canada , and
that the said two acts above
are those referred to the Depositions,
of the HonorableJudge Reid & the Honorable
Samuel Gale two witnesses produced and
examined on the part of the said
plaintiff under another comission
in the said cause issued Given
at Montreal in Canada east the
thirteenth day of april 1846.


of Counsel for the plff. R S
of Counsel for Defdt

The admissions no 2 above written
are the reductions no2 refrred to in
certificate of this date

Montreal 30th day of april 1846JSMCord Ct J

5

Deposition of witnesses produceed sworn
and examined at the office of Robert
S. M . ,
Esquire advocate in the
City of Montreal in the Province of Canada
before me John Samuel Mc Cord , Esquire,
of the Circuit Judges of and for
the District of Montreal in Canada East
JMC
CtJ in the said Province
in a certain cause now pending in
the Circuit Court for the County of
S. Louis , State of Missouri between
Pierre , of Color, Plaintiff and
Gabriel S. Chouteau Defendant on the
part of the said Defendant.

J. S.M . C
CTJ.

Adelaide Chaboillez widow of the late
Joseph in his life time of
the City of Quebec in the Province of Canada
Jurveyor General of that part of the Province
of Canada , fomerly Lower Canada now
Canada East, of lawful age having
produceed sworn and examined
the past of the Defendant deposeth and
saith; I am not related
to the parties in this
Cause nor interested
in the event of this suit

J. S.M .C.
CtJ . I was born in the City of Montreal
in 1783 - I have a distinct recollection that
during my Youth up to the year 1795 or 6 or to
there were several slaves owned by my
mother, who resided in Montreal in
. Some of those slaves were blacks
and others werepanis - The names of
the former I I wroteremember they
wereHowever, Jack and - the
paniswerecalled Joseph , Jacques , &
Charlotte Her mother whose named I
forget, also belonged to my mother

To the best of my recollections
Charlottesmother, the panis slave was
bought at that time from a .
I do not remember what became
of themall but I know that Joseph
was accidently drowned and
was emancipated by my mother &
so I believe were several of the others
at my mother's this death which
in 1797 - 1798. at the period of which
I am speaking several familiies held
and owned slaves in Montreal -
- I have no doubt that my mother
consideredthese slaves of which I have
spoken by name, as her property, and
that at that time the holding & having
slaves in Montreal was never objected
to or considered illegal but seemed
on the contrary to be perfectly sanctioned
by the of the County, as for as
I could see.

cross examined by Griffin
of Counsel for the plff.

I have knowledge that the
right of holding slaves in this Province
was questioned or tried in any
Court of law - nor have I heard of
any decision on the subject.

The foregoing depoition being read to the
Deponent, she persiststherein declaring it
contain the truth & hath signed

Adelaide
I John Samuel Mc Cord Esquire, one of
the

6

7

the Circuit Judges of and for the District
of Montreal in the Province of Canada
do hereby Certify that Adelaide
the Deponent whose place of residence
is Montreal was by the sworn to testify the
whole truth of her knowledge touching
the matter in Controversy in the cause
aforesaid; that Deponent was examined
and her examination reduced to writing
and subscribed by said Deponent in my
presence on the sixth day of April one
thousand eight hundred and forty six
between the hours of eight o'clock in the
forenoon and six O'Clock in the afternoon
at the Office of R.S . in
the City of Montreal in the said Province .

Given and Certified the sixth day
of april 1846. One Marginal note is good & . J. M . Cord CtJ

other witness being produceed for examin
ations I adjourn the further taking of
Depositions tomorrow at the same
place & between the by consent
of the Counsel for the plaintiff
& Defendant in the Cause.

6. april 1846. J. M . C.ord CtJ By consent
Griffin
of Counselfor plff,
R. S . the
of Counsel for Defdt

8

to the adjournment of yesterday
the 6th day of April, the Counsel
of the parties on this seventh
day of april 1846, and consulted to
a further adjournment tomorrow
the eighth day of april there to
at the residence of . Mary Angelica
Hay in in this
City between the hours of eight o'clock
in the forenoon and six O'Clock in
the afternoon then and there to take
the Deposition of the said Mary
Angelica Hay whose age & health do
notpermit of her attending at the
office of R. S . . Esq.

7th april 1846.JSM. Cord CtJ By Consant
Griffin
of Counsel for plff
R. S. M .
of Counsel for Defdt

Pursuant to the adjournment last above
, on the 8th day of april 1846 between the
hours of 8 O'Clock in the forenoon & 6 O'Clock in the
afternoon at the residence of . M . A Hay in
Dalhousie Square as aforesaid, I continued
the Depositions the taking of the Depositions
in this Cause as follows.

9

Mary Angelica widow
of the late Richard B. Hay Esquire
in his life time of the City of Quebec
Esquire, of lawful age, being produceed
sworn and examined on the
part of the Defendant deposeth
and saith; I am not related
to the parties in
this cause nor
interested in the
event of this suit.

JSM. C. CtJ .
I was borm in the
City of Quebec in the Province of
Canada about the year 1776. I
have a veryclearrecollection
that slavery existed in Canada
during my youth - manyof
our friends in Quebec were slave
holders, and about the year 1790
I remember that my father
sold a slave called , at
auction, at Quebec and
that such a sale was
questioned on the ground of
its validity - In 1790 - or 1791 I
left Quebec for Kingston and after
residing there two or three year
or perhaps four I returned to Quebec
and found that were
still owned & possessed by their
masters in the sameway as
when I left - The ownership and
possession of slaves in Quebec
was a general thing
and spoken of as a matter of
- I have no knowledge
that the right to fold slaves
was ever questioned in Quebec
or in Canada at that
time.

cross - examined -

The legality or illegality of holding
slaves was never questioned that
I know of - I can only speak
of the practie & what I saw -
the foregoing deposition being
Deponent persisted therein
it contains the truth & hath .

. Hay

I. John Samuel Mc Cord , Esquire, and
of

10

of the Circuit Judges of and for the
District of Montreal in the Province of
Canada so hereby Certify, that
Mary Angelica Hay , who signs "An Hay "
the Deponent, whose place of residence
is Montreal in the said Province was
by me sworn to testify the whole
truth of her knowledge touching the
matter in controversy in the cause
aforesaid; that the deponent was
examined and her examination
reduced to writings, and subscribed
by said Deponent in my presence
on the eighth day of april in the
year eighteen hundred and
forty six between the hours of
Eight o Clock in the forenoon and
six o' Clock in the afternoon at the
residence of the Deponent in Dalhousie
Square in the City of Montreal , at whose
residence the said depositions was so taken
by consent of the Counsel representing
the parties here, in consequences of
the age & health of the witness.

Given and certified the eighth
day of april 1846, One marginal is
good & valid.J. S . M . Cord
Ct.J.

11

No other witnesses being produced
for examination this day I adjourned
the further taking of depositions in
this cause to Saturday the Eleventh
day of April instant at the office of
R. S . between the hours
of eight o' Clock in the forenoon and
six O' Clock in the afternoon, at which
time and place the taking of the
depositions should be Continued.

Montreal April 8th. 1846. By Consent -
Griffin
of Counsel for plff.. S. M .
of Counsel for Defdt

Pursuant to the adjournment last above
statedon the eleventh day of april eighteen
hundred forty six, between the hours of
8 o' Clock in the forenoon & 6 o' Clock in the
afternoon at the office of R. S . .
, I then and there
Continued taking the Depositions
in thecause as follows, .

Charles William

12

Charles William Grant , de
, of the City Montreal
in the District of Montreal , of lawful
age, being produceed sworn and
examined on the part of the said
Defendant deposeth and saith,
Iwas in Quebec in 1782I am not related
to the on
in the
Court of this suit

J. S.M . C
Ct. J.
I have a
perfect recollection of the existence of
slavery in Canada as late as the year
1794 we had three slaves in our family,
Fanny, a Black woman, William , a Black
& a panis; there is no doubt in
my that these individuals
were there in the conditions
of slavey and that such a condition
was at that time considered
as perfectly legal and valid -
in 1794 I left Canada for
and when I returned in 1801 the
slaves of whom I have spoken
were no longer with the family,
but howtheyweredisposed of
I cannot say at the time of
which I am speaking in 1794
our neighbor
who is now dead, had a slave, and
the late Chief with also
possessed two slaves to my
knowledge, and several otherfriends,
had slaves also.

de Long
cross - examined by griffin
Counsel for plaintiff. J.

13

I have no knowledge of the
question of the legality of slavery
in Canada were being in
a Court of law in this Country .

The foregoing deposition being
read to the deponent he
therein declaring the cause to
Contain the truth & hath signed.

Grant

I John Samuel Mc Cord Esquire one of the
Circuit Judges of & for the District of Montreal
in the Province of Canada do hereby certify
that Charles William ,
Deponent who signs “
whose place of residence is Montreal in the
said Province was by me sworn to testify
the whole truth of his knowledge touchingthe
matter in controversy in the cause aforesaid;
that the Deponent was examined and his
examination reduceed to writing and subscribed
by the said Deponant in my
presence on the eleventh day of april
eighteen hundred and forty six between
the hours of eight O'Clock in the forenoon
and six O'Clock in the afternoon at the
office of R. . in the said City
of Montreal .

Given & certified this eleventh
day of April 1846. J.S. M. Cord CtJ

14

15

de
la Cite de Montreal dans le District de
Montreal , Province du Canada ,
legale, un product,
of et de la part
du , depose at Je Louis
des parties,

de .
J. S.M .C. CtJ
Je
suis he dans le District de
, 1778 - Is
de l'sechave Canada
'1798 -
quiest dans
1790 or 1791, dans
d'esclaur - familea a Montreal
dans des
tant panis -
: . M , . Howard
. , W .
Chaboillez -
ces sact
- En 1793.
esclave ( in ) in .
aloss de
, qui
-
Esclave
1799
. 1795 - and 1796
In the
set a des
six
les
fact -
ses .
it
Montreal

esclaves - la close
stait Command, St
chy des esclaves
dout it
- Jawais if put
quo 1799 - on 1800 la
de l'stat d'esclage dans
an his des
& stairnt defait
at de st
balable - ,
dit 1799 - or 1800,
st
far
liberte far me des
a - ,
que decision sur

, mais lequel & jr
he far
de .

par . Griffin ,
.

dit les droits des

d'aborb la &
les esclave

de ect .
but question de
de la
1800
- - La Deposition

16

17

le Disposant y

J D Lacroix

I John Samuel McCord Esquire one of the
Circuit Judges of & for the District of Montreal
in the province of Canada do hereby Certify
that LaCroix, the
whose place of residecne is Montreal in the
said provience was by me sworn to testify
the whole truth of his knowledge
the in controversy in the Cause
aforesaid that the deponent was examined
and his examinationreduced to writing
and subscribed by the said deponent
in mypresence on the eleventh day
of april eighteen hundred and forty six
between the hours of eight o Clock in
the forenoon and six o clock in the
afternoon at the office of
in the said City of Montreal .

given and Certified this Eleventh
day of April 1846.J S M Cord Ct.J

No other witness being produced this day I adjourn
the further taking of Depositions by consent of
parties to tuesday the fourteen day of april
at the office of between the hours aforesaid

Montreal april 11th 1846.JSM Cord CtJ By consent
of CounselforPltf..

of Counsel for defdt

Pursuant to adjournment on the
fourteenth day of April at the time & place aforesaid
I
I continued taking the Deposition in the said
cause as follows; .

Patrick O'Keefe of the City of
Montreal in the Province of Canada student at law of lawful age, bring
produced sworn and examined on the
part of the said Defendantdeposeth and
saith; I and not related to the parties in
this cause nor do I know either of them
nor and I intrested in the event of this
suit. I and a student at law at the
of admission to the Bar and amLibrarian
to the "adovcates Library of Montreal
the paper writing I now produced
Defendant's Exhibit (A) and
of this examination is an
Copy of an act of the Parliament of
Great Britain passed in the thirteenth
year of the reign of His Late Majesty
George the third chapter 27 entitled
"an act for the encouraging of new
settlers in HisMajesty'sColonies and
Plantations in America " which act
is found in the statutes at Large of Great
Britain in the said Library & was law in
the provience of Quebec at the time
the province being specially mentioned
therein The said copy of the said act
was made by me & was by me duly
examined and with the
stated Book & printed Copy of the
said act &Ideclare the said examined
Copy to be a true Copy of the said
act. The foregoing deposition being
read

18

19

read the Deponent persiststherein
declaring it the the truth and
hath the Law.

Patrick O'Keeffe
Mr. Griffin for plff declares he hath no cross- questions to put

I John Samuel McCord Esquire one of
the Circuit Judges of for the District
of Montreal in the Provinces of Canada do
hereby certify that Despard Patrick O'Keeffe
the whose of residence
is Montreal was by by law sworn to testify
the whole truth of his knowledge touching
the in controversy in the cause
aforesaid that Deponent was examined
and his examination reduced to writing
and subscribed by said Deponent in
my presence an the fourteenth day of
april eighteen hundred and forty six
between the hours of eight oclock in the forenoon
and six o clock in the afternoon at the
office of in the City
of Montreal in the said Province

given and certified the fourteen
day of april 1846.JSM Cord Ct.J.

No other witness being produced for examination
this day I adjourn the further taking of
Depositions in the cause until tomorrow the fifteenth
day of april at the office of R S
Esqbetween the hours of eight
o clock
o clock in the forenoon and 6 o clock
in the afternoon at which time and
place the Depositions shall be continued
april 14th 1846.

J. S . M . Cord Ct.J. By consent. Griffin
of CounselFor Pltff
R . S .
of Counsel for Deft

20

21

Defendant'sExhibit (A) referred to
in the examination of Patrick O'Keeffe . Geo 3rd Cap 27th
AnnoDomini1790
J. S.M .C. CtJ

An Act for encouraging new settlers in
His MajestysColonies and plantations in
America

Whereas it is expedient that encouragnment
should be given to persons that are desposed to
Come and settle in Certain of His Majesty'sColonies
and Plantations in America and the West, Indies
be it, therefore enacted by the Kings most excellent
Majesty, by and with the advice and Consent, of the
LordsSpiritual and Temporal and Commons
in this present, Parliamentassembled and by
the authority of the same - 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 counted belonging to the United States of A -
merica, shall come from thence, together with
his or their family or families, to any of the
Bahama,Burmuda, or Somers Island , or to
any part of the Province of Quebec or of
Nova Scotia or of any of the Territories be-
longing to His majesty in North America
for the purpose of residing or settling there, it
shall be Lawful for any such person or persons,
having

having first obtained a License for that
purpose from the Governor or in his absence
the Lieutenant Governor of the said Islands,
Colonies or Provinces respectively to import, into
the same, in British ships owned by his Majesty's
Subjects and Navigated according to law, any
negroes, Household Furniture ,Utensils of Husbandry
& cloathing free of duty provided al
ways, That such Household Furniture Utensils
of Husbandry and cloathing shall not in the
whole exceed the value of Fifty pounds for
every white person that shall belng to such
family; and the value of forty shillings for every
negro brought by such white person; and if
any dispute shall arise as to the value of such
Household Furniture Utensils of Husbandry
or Cloathing the same shall be heard and
determined by the Arbitration of three British
Merchants at the port, where the same
shall be imported, one of such British merchants
to be appointed by the governer, or in his absence
the Lieutenant governer of such Island or province
one by the Collector of the Customs at such Port
and one by the person so coming with his
family

II and be it further enacted, 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 & purposes whatsover

22

23

III and be it further enacted that Thatevery White
person so coming to reside, if above the age
of fourteen years shall, and he is hereby required
immediately after his arrival to take and
subscribe the Oath of Allegiance to His
majesty his heirs and successors, before the
governor, Lieutenant Governor or Chief Magistrate
of the place where such person shall arrive and
at the same time that, it, is his intention
to reside and settle in such Island or Provinces
for which Oaths such Governor , Lieutenant
Governor or Chief Magistrate shall receive
the same fee and no more, as is payable by
law on administering the Oath of Allegiance
in Cases where the same is now by law re
quired

True Copy D P O'Keeffe

Copied from the Statute at large
of the Parliament of Great Britain
by Charles Eyre and Andrew
to the negro most
excellent Majesty - London 1794

Montreal April 14th 1846

In the Circuit court
for the County of
St Louis
St. of Missouri

Pierre of Color
plff
vs
Gabriel S. Chouteau
Defdt

Defendant's Exhibit (A)
refered to in the examination
of Patrick O'Keeffe
& by him produced.

Preamble.

Rocitae of Act 30th Geo III

The same in part repealed.

Provisions against the further introduc-
tion of slaves

28

first page
Second session First ParliamentC. 7. Thirty third year of George III. 1793.

Chapter VII.

An act to prevent the further Introduction of slaves, and to limit the term
of contracts for servitude within this province (passed July 9. 1793.)
Preamble Whereas. it is unjust that a people who enjoy freedom by
Law should encourage the introduction of salves, and whereas it is
highly expedient to abolish slavery in this province, so far as the
same may gradually be done without violating private property: be it
enacted by the Kings most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice
and consent of the legislative council and assembly of the province
of Upper Canada constituted and assembled by virture of and
under the authority of an act passed in the parliament of great
Britain entitled "An act to repeal certain parts of an act passed
in the fourteenth year of his Majesty's Reign, entitled An act
for making more effectual provision for the government of the
province of Quebec , in North America and to make further
provision for the government of the said province," and by the
authority of the same, That from and after the passing of this act
so much of a certain act of the parliament of Great Britain , pass
Rocital of Act 30th
Geo. III. ed in the thirtieth year of his present Majesty, entitled, "An act for
encouraging new settlers in his Majesty's colonies and plantations in
America ," as may enable the governor or lieutenant governor of
this province heretofore parcel of his Majesty's province of Quebec to
grant a license for importing into the same any negro or negroes, shall
be, and the same is hereby repealed, and that from and after the
passing of this act, it shall not be lawful for the governor, lieutenant
The same in part
repealed governor or person administering the government of this province
to grant a license for the importation of any negro or other
person to be subjected to the condition of a slave or to abound
en involuntary service for life, into any part of this province;
nor shall any negro, or other person who shall come or be
brought into this province after the passing of this act, be
subject to the condition of a slave or to such service as
Provisions aginst the further introduction of slaves aforesaid within this province, nor shall any volunta
ry contract of Service or indentures that may be
entered

entered into by any parties within this province
after the passing of this act, be binding on
them or either of them for a longer time Term of servitude
by contract limited
than a term of nine years from the day of
the date of such contract.

II. Provided always that nothing herein
Contained shall extend or be construed to
The owners of slaves
at present within
the province confirmed
in their property therein
extend to liberate any negro, or other person
subjected to such service as aforesaid or to
discharge them or any of them from the poss
ession of the owner thereof, his or her executers ad
ministrators or assigns, who shall have come or been
brought into this province, in conformity to the con
ditions prescribed by any authority for that purpose
exercised or by any ordinance or law of the province of
Quebec or by proclamation of any of his Majesty's go
vernors of the said province for the time being or of any
act of the parliamant of Great Britain or shall have
Nothing herein to
extend to contacts for
service already made,
nor to parents or guar
dians otherwise come into the possession of any person by gift bequest
or Bona fida punchase before the passing of this act, whose
property therein is hereby confirmed, or to vacate or annul
any contract for service that may, heretofore have been
lawfully made and entered into, or to prevant parents or
guardians from binding our children, until they shall have
obtained the age of Twenty one years.

III. And in order to prevent the continuation of slavery
within this province, be it enacted by the authority afore
said. That immediately from and after the passing of this
The children that
shall be born of
female slaves to
remain in the service
of the owner of their
mother until the age
of 25 years when they
shall be discharged.
act, every child that shall be born of a negro mother or oth
er woman subjected to such service as aforesaid shall
abide and remain with the master or mistress in whose
service the mother shall be living at the time of
such child's birth (unless such mother and child shall
leave such service by and with the consent of such
master or mistress) and such master or mistress shall

and

29

Second Page

third page

30

and is hereby required to give proper nourishment
and clothing to such child or children and shall
and may put such child or children to work.
when he she or they shall be able to do so and
shall and may retain him or her in their service
until every such child shall have attained the
age of twenty five years, at which time they and
each of them shall be entilled to demand his
or her discharge from and shall be discharged by
such master or mistress, from any further service.
And to the end that the age of such child or children
Birth of the Children
of salves to be recorded
may be more easily ascertained, the master or mistress
of the mother thereof shall and is hereby required
to cause the day of the birth of every such child as
shall be born of a negro or other mother subjected
to the condition of a slave in their service as aforesaid
to be registered within three months after its
birth by the clerk of the parishtownship or place
wherein such master or mistress reside, which clerk
shall be authorised to demand and receive the sum
of one shilling for registering the same. And in case
any master or mistress shall refuse or neglect to cause
penalty for neglecting
or refusing to record
the same such register to be made, within the time aforesaid
and shall be convicted thereof either on his or her
confession or by the oath of one or more credible wit
ness or witnesses, before any justice of the peace
he or she shall for every such offense forfeit and pay
the sum of five pounds to the public stock of the
District .

IV. And be it further enacted by the authority afore
said that in case any master or mistress shall detain
any such child born in their service as aforesaid
after the passing of this act under any pretence what
ever after such servant shall have attained the
age of twenty five years except by virture of a

contract

contract of service or indentures duly and volun
tarily excuted after such discharge as aforesaid
it shall and may be lawful for such servant
to apply for a discharge to any of his Majsety's justices
of the peace, who shall and is hereby required there
upon to issue a summon to such master or mistress
to appear before him to shew cause why such servant
should not be discharged and the proof that such
servant is under the age of twenty five years shall rest
upon and be adduced by the master or mistress of
such servant otherwise it shall and may be
lawful for the said justice to discharge such servant
from such service as aforesaid provided always
provision for the is
sue of children of
slaves.
That in case any issue shall be born of such children during their infantservitude or after, such issue shall
be entilled to all the rights and privilegs of free born
subjects

V And be it further enacted that whenever any
master or mistress shall liberate or release any
person subject to the condition of a slave from their
service, they shall at the same time give good and
sufficient security to the church or town wardens
of the parish or township where they live that the
security to be given
on liberating a slave
person so released by them shall not become
chareable to the same, or any other parish or
township

The foregoing is the manuscript
Copy referred to in the certificate
my Hand at this twenty
seventh April 1846 for
..

Fourth Page

31

Province Of Canada ,
District of Montreal .To All to whom these Presents shall come,

I, William N. Crawford , Notary Public,
duly commissioned and sworm in and for that part of the said
Province of Canada heretofore called Lower Canada , dwelling in
the City of Montreal in the District and Province aforesaid,

Do hereby Certify and Declare, That the foregoing or annexed
manuscript within four pages of foolscap, comprises a faithful and
authentic copy of a certain Act of the Parliament of the late Province
of Upper Canada made and passed in the second session of the first
Parliament thereof in the thirty third years of the Reign of George III
1793. Chap. VII entitled an act to prevent the further introduction
of slaves and to limit the term of contracts for within
this Province ." the said manuscript copy having been duly
and carefully collated by me the said Notary with the
Original thereof found in the revised statutes of Upper Canada
Published by authority Vol.I. Public Acts
Toronts Robert Stanton, Printer to the
Queens Most Excellent Majesty
was found to correspond in every respect there with

Act of all which being requested of me, the said Notary, I have
granted these presents, under my Notarial Form and Seal of
Office, to serve and avail as occasion shall or may require.

In Faith and Testimony whereof, I have hereunto set
my name and seal of Office aforesaid, this Twenty seventh
day of April in the year of our Lord, One thousand
eight hundred and forty six

In Test: Veritatis Wm . N. Crawford , N.P .

Pierre of colour
vs
G. S.Chouteau

Defendants exhibt
(B). refered to in
admission No 2.

J.S . M Cord CtJ .

Province of Canada

His excellency Lieutenant General
The Right Honorable Charles
Murray Earl Cathcart of Cathcart
in the County of Renfrew K. C. B
Governor General of British North
America and Captain General
and Governor in cheif in and
over the Province of Canada .
Nova Scotia NewBrunswick
and the Island of Prince Edward
Vice Admiral of the same and
commander of Her Majesty's
forces in British North America .

To all to whom these presents shall come. Greeting.

I do hereby certifty that William
N. Crawford whose name is subscribed to the
foregoing certificate is Public it shows in and
for that part of the Province of Canada hereto
fore Lower Canada duly commissioned and
authorized as such. In consequence whereof
full faith and enters credit are and
to be given to his signature in that capacity
wherever the may appear.

Given undermy hand and
seal at Arms at Montreal
in the said Province this
twenty seventh day of April
in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and forty
six and in the ninth year of
Her Majesty's reign By Command

24

parsuant to the adjournment of
yestarday, on the fifteenth day of April
at the office of R.
Esquire and between the hours of eight
o clock in the forenoon & six o clock in
the afternoon I continued taking the
Depositions in this cause in the presence
of the counsel of the parties as follows;
;

Wiliam Elliot of Sandwich in that
part of the Province of Canada hertofore
upper Canada Barrister at law now at the City
of Montreal in
the said Province
of Canada .
W . E
JSMC
CtJ of
lawful age being produced Sworn and
examined on the part of the said
Defendant deposeth and saith I neither
know nor am I related to the parties in
this cause nor and I interested in the
event of their suit - I came to Canada
in 1802 - and was admitted to the Bar
in upper Canada the year following
ever since in the practice of my profession. At the time I came
to Canada I forced salvery in existence
there, and it continued there to my
Knowledge until 1812 - I know of several
individual instances of slavery- my
cousin colored Elliot , then residing
at &
affairs in upper Canada had
several slaves some of color were Blacks
& others mulattos & panis Thomas
McKee also of
of Indian affairs under Colonel Elliot
had
had 7 or 8 Slaves male & female
all of whom were on his farm at
- When I in 1804
Colonel Elliot made me a gift of and
of his slaves a panis woman who
died in my family in 1809 in the condition
of Slavery. Both Colonel Elliot & Mr.
McKee died many years ago -
I have no doubt that both Colonel
Elliot & McKee considered the blacks
mulattos & panis of which I have spoken
as their own personal property as being
legally in the condition of Slavery - indeed
I recollect receving Col : elliot in 1802
or 1803, a
JSMC. CtJ
power of attorney to recover a runaway
slave or to sell him, he having escaped
from his master at & gone
into - I did accordingly
recover him & sold him. Slavery at
the time I am speaking of & was considered
perfrectly legal in Canada and I am
not aware that the right of holding
slaves was everquestioned in any
of the Courts of law in Upper Canada
on the contrary the existence of
slavery was formally recognised by
the legislature of the then Province
of Upper Canada , by which an act
waspassed in 1793 providing for
the gradual abolition of slavery in
that Province . This act is the 33rd Geo
III.Chap7 the state of things for
which this act legislatedmust have
been to both the Provinces

of

25

26

of Upper & Lower Canada , which
orginally constituted the Province
of Quebec . The Imperial Act of the
30th GeoIIIchap 27passed for the
purpose of immigrants
form the adjoining Colonies or the West
Indies to import negros duty free
under certain circumstances is
to my as to the
recognition by
of the existence of
slavery in the province of Quebec
at that period and so long as
that act in
force.

Cross examined by Mr. Griffin of
Counsel of the plaintiff.

I have no knowledge as I have I stated before
of the legality of Slavery in Canada being
tested in a court of law but I should
think the acts of which I have
spoken would leave no doubt on
the subject.

The foregoing Deposition bring read
to Deponent he persists therein declaring
the same to contain the truth and
hath signed.

Wm . Elliot

I John Samuel McCord Esquire
of the Circuit Judges of and for the
District of Montreal in the Province

of

of Canada do hereby Certify that
William Elliot the Deponent was by
me sworn to testify the whole truth of
his Knowledge touching the matter
in Controversy in the cause aforesaid
that Deponent was examined and
his examination reduced to writing
and subscribed by said Deponent
in my presence on the fifteenth
day of april eighteen hundred and
forty six between the hours of eight
O'Clock in the forenoon and six
O'Clock in the afternoon at the office
of R S in the City of
Montreal in the said province.

given and certified the fifteenth
day of april 1846. good J S Mc.Cord Ct.J.

I John Samuel Mc Cord Circuit
Judge within and for the District of
Montreal in the province of Canada
do

27

Province of Canada ,
District of Montreal
to wit.

It is hereby certified, that
John Samuel Mc Cord Esquire who has
signed the foregoing return, on the twenty fifth
day of March last past was, and for that day
to this hath continued to be and still is one of
Her Majesty's Circuit Judges for the district of
Montreal in the Province of Canada , duly comissioned
and acting as such, and that full faith and
credit are due to his acts as such.

In testimoney whereof we, Samuel
Wentworth Monk William
Holmes Griffin and
Louis Joseph
Joint of the Court
of Queen's Bench for the said
District of Montreal hereunto
subscribed our name, and affixed
the seal of the saind Court this
second - day of may, in the
year of our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and forty six, and of Her
the ninth

Monk Griffin & Papineau
PQ.B

On Commission from the Circuit Court for the
County of St Louis in the state of Missouri for the
addition of wisdom on behalf of the plaintiff,

Pierre (of colour) plaintiff
vs
Gabriel S . Chouteau Defendant.

I John Samuel M Cord ,Esquire a
Circuit judge in and for the District of Montreal
in Canada last do certify that in pursuance of
the within commission and notice, came before me
at his own house is the city of Montreal in
Canada East the Honorable James Reid and
at the Court house in the said City, the Honorable
Samual Gale , and Samuel Wentworth Monk
Esquire who were by me respectively sworn and
examined and such examination reduced to writing
and subscribed by them respectively in my presence
and this depositions are now herewith returned
and I do further certify that immeditely after
the examination of the said witnesses Frederick
Griffin of the said city of Montreal counselattending
to the execution of the said within commission on behalf
of the plaintiff, produced as evidance on behalf of
the plaintiff an exemplification duly authenticated
under the great seal of the Province of Canada , of
the Proclamationattended to in two of the aforesaid
depositions is the King's Proclamation of the seventh
of October 1763, and a writtensigned by the
saidcounsel and by Robert S M Esquire
Counselattending on behalf of the Defenadant touching
a certain act of the Parlaimant of Great Britain
therein mentioned and the saidexemplification and
within consent an also now herewithreturned

Given at the said City of Montreal
this second day of May in the
year of Our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and forty six.J S M Cord Ct. J .


District of To all whom these presents shall come
greeting

This is to certify that John Samuel
M Cord , whose name is subscribed to the foregoing
certificates, paper writings and documents, was on the
sixth day of April last, hath been ever since and now
is one of the Circuit Judges of and for the District of
Montreal in Canada East duly commissioned and
authorized to dosuch In, consequence whereof
full faith and credit are and ought to be given to his
signature in that capacity whenever the same may appear

In Testimoney whereof we
Samuel Wentworth Monk William
Craigie Holomes Coffin and Louis
Joseph Amedee Papineau joint
prothonotary of HerMajesty's Court
of Queen's Bench of an for the said
District of Montreal Canada east have
hereunto set our hand and the seal of
the said Court at Montreal this fourth
day of may in the year of our Lord,
one thousand eight hundred and forty six
and in the ninth year of HerMajesty's
Reign

Monk Coffin Papineau
PQB

Opened & filed May 181846

Jno Ruland Clerk
No 125
November Term 1842
Pierre of color

vs for defts

Gabriel S Chouteau

Pierre suing for freedom
vs
Gabriel S. Chouteau
S Louis Circuit Court Louis suing for freedom
vs
Gabriel S Chouteau
same Court Michel suing for freedom
vs
Gabriel Paul
samecourt

The following deposition is taking by
counsel of parties & is to be read in evidence
on the trail of each of the foregoing
causes for the defendants respectively so far
as relevant & competentMay 2. 1846.

Spalding & Tiffany
attys of defts Cobb
Attorney for pfts.

1

Mariam Tison of Lawful age, being produced Sworn
and examined on the part of the defendants, respectively, in each of they above Cases deposeth & saith
that she was born & brought up in the City of Montreal in Canada and is
now 78 years of age. Affiant was 27 years of age when she
came to St Louis Mo. and had three three children Camedirect from
Montreal to St Louis and has been living in St Louis and
its vicinity ever Since. Knew a Coloured woman Called Rose
in Montreal her after wards in St Louis in the Service

of August Chouteau - first saw her in the Service of Mr.
Didier and afterwards in the Service of Mr. August Chouteau
Mr. Didier was a silver smith Mr. Didier had a Brother
a Priest in St Louis , and who lived at the Presbitary
Didier the Priest was in St Louis at the time affiant saw
Rose at the Silver Smiths - did not know Rose long in Canada
She was sold in the Winter & affiant moved away in
the following Spring affiant moved from Canada either
in the month of May or June - affiant left before Rose
Rose was at her masters when affiant left, the name of
Rose's Master, was Joseph Berlinguette he was a Baller
and Sinner Rose Served him, as a Slave would serve her
master affiant saw Rose working & serving her master
and mistress Berlinguette bought Rose as a slave & kept
her as such affiant states that Berlinguette's family spoke
of Rose as a slave affiant knew other colouredpersonsslaves slaves at Montreal
held by Colonel Clause & Colonel Campbell knew them
to be slaves from seeing them doing household work for
their Master as aforesaid, and by thier masters supporting
them & taking Care of them and that they did not get
their livilihood elsewhere affiant was an appren
tice at Montreal to the tailoring business, and her master had
done work for Clause & Campbell's Slaves, on account of their
masters as aforesaid - for four years - the master of
Rose , at Montreal was affiants uncle affiant has no
knowledge of the deed that was pass'd for Rose , but she
knows of the fact of an exchange having been made for
her, which was, that her owner owner exchanged her for a
a Horse for her, on the public market place in Montreal
Rose was not born in Montreal and affiant is not able
to say, where she Came from - affiants youngest Child

2

When she left Canada for St. Louis , was about Six
months old, and the oldest going on seven years old
affiant was sixteen years of age, when she got married.
The oldest child born of that marriage aforesaid was named,
John Baptiste , affiant was married about 18 months before
her oldest Child was born - affiant thinks that Roe was
about 15 years old when she saw her at Montreal - does
not remember having heard where Rose Came from, to Mont
-real,

Cross examined by Pltffs attorney

3

Affiant states that whatever Rose was ordered to do, as
Belinguette's, she did do, becaue she was obliged
did not see the actual exchange of Rose , but saw her
Owner go off w2ith the Horse, and Come back with Rose ,
affiant was married in 1785 - and in 1786, or 1787 the Colonels aforesaid
Came to Montreal with the slaves aforesaid, that was the
first time affiant heard of Slaves being in Canada
the Colonels aforesaid were in Montreal when affiant left,
they must have Come to Montreal about 1780. The Colonels
treated their slaves, as slaves usually are treated, they were
well maintained & taken Care of, and better treated than
they are in Missouri Clause's slaves were
Clad in blue and yellow living, and Campbell's in
Blue & red. They were not dressed richly, but Neatly,
the Colonels these Coloured people did not appear like
horid persons, the Colonels had servants enough of
their own, Without hiring any - the treatment of these
slaves by Clause & Campbell , were much the same as
other persons treat hired Servants. - there were times
when these slaves were not worked hard, but when the
Spring cameround, they worked hard, and had to attend
to their Gardens, never knew of their living -

When affiant speaks of S Louis , she means persons of
Colour - black Sskins - affiant always heard of them spoken
of as slaves - but never heard of the right or authority
spoken of to dispose of them - never knew of any
other slaves of montreal, but these she has spoken of -

Re-examined
the Name of the youngest Child affiant brought with
her from Canada , is Francois , who is now living at
Florisant , does not know his age, he was Christened
in Canada , immediately after his birth, by Mr.
, a Priest , be belonging to the Cathedral Church
Church at Montreal - affiants Husbands Name
was John Baptist Tison , and affiants Mariam
Norman deau - affiant was about 18 months in St.
when she had another Child born named , which
was baptized in the Church of St. Louis , and has
since died. and further deponent saith
not.

Sworn to
before me the 2nd day
of May 1846. Peter
Justice of the Peace Marianne her x
mark Tisson

4

State of Missouri
County of St. Louis
ss

I Peter , a Justice
of the peace
within ofer the County aforesaid - do hereby Certify that
the foregoing deposition was taken by consent, and that
Mariamm Tison , the deponent whose Name is subscribed
to the same, camebefore me, at the office of spalding &

Tiffany on Main Street , in the City of St Louis County &
State aforesaid and was by me Sworn to testify the
whole truth of her Knowledge, touching the matter in
Controversy in the Cause aforesaid that deponent was
examined and her examination reduced to writing and
Subscribed by said deponent in my presence, on the 2nd day
of May eighteen hundred & forty Six between the hours
of Eight O Clock in the forenoon & Six O Clock in
the afternoon of said day.

Given under my hand at St Louis in the County
of St Louis and state of Missouri this 2nd day of
May 1846. Peter
Jusctice of the Peace Justice fee $ 2.50
paid by G. S . Chouteau

No 125 November Term 1842

Pierre and others
vs
Gabriel S Chouteau &
Gabriel Paul

Depositions for defts.

Opened and filed May 28th 1846 John Ruland Clk Justice fees $ 2.50 paid by Chouteau
Tison

Pierre (a man of color)
vs
Gabriel Chouteau

In St Louis Circuit Court

To, The above named Defendant,

Take notice, that depositions of witnesses to
be read in evicence on the trial of the above entitled
cause, will be taken on the Second day of October A.D.
1846. between the hours of 8 o'clock in the forenoon,
and 6 o'clock in the afternoon at my office, in
the City of Saint Louis , Missouri the part of the Plaintiff; 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
until completed

Witness my hand and
Offical seal this 28th day
of September A.D. 1846, Jno H Watson : Law Commissioner of St Louis

Executed this their notice By A True Copy with the within
named defendant in Saint Louis TownshipSeptember 29
1846

James M
Constable By Charles Kick
Deputy fee 25

State Of Missouri ,
County Of St. Louis ,
Sct.The State Of Moissouri,To Any Constable in said County,--- Greeting:

Whereas, I, John H. Watson , Law Cmmissioner, within and for the County of
St. Louis , aforesaid, have been required to take the examination of witnesses in a certain cause
now depending in the Circuit Court of the County of Saint Louis ,
in the State of Missouri between Pierre (a man of color,)
plaintiff, and Gabriel Chouteau defendant :

These are, therefore, to command you to summon
Michel Marti
that hethey and each of them severally appear before me, at my Office in the
County of St. Louis on the Second day of October A.D. 1846.
at Two of the clock, in after noon of that day, then and there to be ex
amined, and so satisfy the truth, according to the best of histheir knowldege, for and on behalf of the
said Plaintiff hereof they arehe is not to fail, and fail not
at your peril.

Given under my hand and seal of office, this 30th
day of September 1846 Jno H. Watson .

Executed this writ By Reading it to the within Michel
Marti in Saint Louis Township October 1st, 1846

James M Danaugh
Constable By Charles Kick
Deputy fee 25

Depositions of witnesses, produced, sworn, and examined, at
The Law Commissioner Office in the City and County of
St.Louis , State of Missouri , before me, John H. Watson , Law Commissioner for
the said County, in a certain cause now pending in the Saint Louis Circuit
Court , in and for the County of Saint Louis , in the
State of Missouri , between Pierre , (a man of color)
plaintiff and
Gabriel Chouteau ,
defendant, on the part of the Plaintiff
Michel Marti , of St Louis County, Missouri of Lawful age, being duly sworn and
examined on the part of the Plaintiff, deposeth and saith:

I have known the Plaintiff in this case, thirty or forty
years. I know the woman who was called Plaintiffs
mother,- her name was Rose . I first knew her
at Mackinaw , about fifty-three years ago. I remained
at Mackinaw but fifteen days after I knew
her. She was claimed at that time as I understood
by a W. Todd . Mackinaw , is in the State of
Michigan . About a year afterwards I again
saw her at Praire du Chien , where she remained
probably a year and a half or more. Two or
three months after I saw her at Praire du Chien ,
I returned there, and found her there still
Thirty Seven or eight years after I saw her
at Praire du Chien , I saw her in Saint
Louis , in this State. She was then living with
Father Didier , as a domestic. I belived her
to be while at Praire du Chien , a free woman
an she noted as such. W. Todd was at
Praire du Chien , while Rose was there and Todd
knew her to be there. Todd did not at Prairie
du Chien , claim her as his slave. I was a
Canadian by birth. I never saw any slaves
in Canada . not read May '56. Chouteau the defendant told
me if I would help him in this case he would
help me. Prairie du Chien , is on the Missouri

Michel Marti

I, Jno H. Watson : "Law Commissioner of Saint Louis County".
in the state of Missouri , do hereby certify that Michel Marti
the deponent, where place of residence is Saint Louis County
in the State of Missouri , was by me sworn to tesitfy the whole
truth of his knowldege touching the matter in Controversy in the cause aforesaid: that deponent was examined and
his examination reduced to writing, and subscribed by said
deponent in my presence, on the second day of October
A.D. 1846, between the hours of 8 o'clock in the forenoon
and 6 o'clock in the afternoon of that day at my
office, in the City of Saint Louis , in the State of Missouri ,
and that, Joseph Palmieri acted as in
said examination, he having been first duly sworn
by me, in reference to his duty as such.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto
set my hand and seal of office
this 16th day of October A.D. 1846. Jno. H.Watson .

No 125 November Term 1842

Marli -

Deposition

Pierre (a man of color)
vs
Gabriel Chouteau .

Marli

Filed 18 Nov 1846 Jno Ruland Clk Commissioner fees $ 2.55/100
Paid by Deft.

County of St. Louis , Ss.
The State Of Missouri ,To, St. Ange Florissant ,
Micheal Fortin .do
Joseph Presser,-do
do
Paschal Cerré . St Louis ,.
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 27th day of April 1847at 9 o clock
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 Pierre (a man of color) is
plaintiff and Gabriel Chouteau is
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 24th day of April
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
forty. seven Jno Ruland Clerk C.C.

St Louis Cir. Ct.

Pierre (a man of color)
vs
Gabriel Chouteau .

Sub. for Plaintiff.

70 St. Ange . Florissant Micheal Fortin .do Joseph Presser do Parish doParchal Cerré St Louis

Execute St Louis April 26 1847
Exept Parish not find

Saml By Jno C. Brown fee $ 200

County of St. Louis , Ss.
The State Of Missouri ,To Michael Marli (on the first
of color between second and
main streets)
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 27th day of April 1847at
9 o clock 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 Pierre (a man of color) is
plaintiff and Gabriel Chouteau is
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 24th day of April
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
forty. seven Jno Ruland Clerk C.C.

27

St Louis Cir Ct

Pierre (a man of color)
vs
Gabriel Chouteau .

Sub. for Plff.

Micheal

Execute April 24 1847 by reading

Samuel Conway
SheriffBy Geo Stevens
Depty fee 50 cts

County Of St. Louis , Ss.
The State Of Missouri ,To Wilson Joseph John
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 27th April 1847
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 Pierre (a man of color) is
plaintiff and Gabriel Chouteau is
defendant on the part of Pltf.
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 26th day of April
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
forty. seven Jno Ruland Clerk C.C.

Pierre (of color)
vs
Gabriel S.Chouteau .

for Plff.

Wilson Primm Joseph John

Executed April 27 1847 by reading
to Wilson Primm
( John not found)

Samuel Conway
SheriffBy Geo Stevens
Depty fee $60

County Of St. Louis , Ss.
The State Of Missouri ,To Wm Jacob Boueau
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 27th day of April
1847 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 Pierre is
plaintiff and Gabriel S. Chouteau is
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 26th day of April
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
forty- seven Jno Ruland Clerk C.C.

In the Circuit Court

Pierre
vs
Chouteau .

Subpeona for Plff.

Wm . Jacob Boueau
for the 27

Executed April 26 1847
by reading

Samuel Conway
SheriffBy Geo Stevens
Depty fee $ 1.00

County of St. Louis , Ss.
The State Of Missouri ,To said to bring the bible a book sharinghis age
Francois Tison Antoine Smith
Marianne Tison Michel Marty -

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 twenty seventh day
of April 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 Pierre is
plaintiff and Gabriel S. Chouteau is
defendant on the part of the defendant
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 22nd day of April
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
forty. seven Jno Ruland Clerk C.C.

27

Pierre
vs
G. S.Chouteau

Antoine Smith Michel Marty Mariann Tison Francois Tison to bring with him
the family bible or
book showing his
age- Apl 27th

Executed April 26 1847 by reading

Samuel Conway
SheriffBy Geo Stevens
Depty fee $ 2.00

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

We command you to attach Michel Marti
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 the 28th 1847 then
and there to testify, and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy, now pending in
our said Circuit Court , between Pierre (of color)
plaintiff, and Gabriel Chouteau defendant, wherein
the said witness has heretofore summoned
on the part of the said plff

Witness, John Ruland , Clerk of our said Circuit
Court , at the City of St. Louis , this 27th day of
April in the year of our Lord, one thousand
eight hundred and forty seven Jno Ruland Clerk C.C.

Pierre
vs
Chouteau

Michel Marti

Came in before this
writ could be served
April 28th 1847

Samuel Conway
SheriffBy Geo Stevens
Depty

County of St Louis , Ss.
The State Of Missouri ,To Francis Fouche
Greeting:

You are hereby commanded, that setting aside all manner of excuse and delay, you appear
before the Judge of our Circuit Court , on theforthwith 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 Pierre (of color) 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 27th day of April
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
forty. seven Jno Ruland Clerk C.C.

Pierre
vs
Chouteau .

Francis Fouche

Executed April 27th
1847 by reading

Samuel Conway
SheriffBy Geo Stevens
Depty F. $ 0.50

County Of St. Louis , Ss.
The State Of Missouri ,To F.T.Renaud
Greeting:

You are hereby commanded, that setting aside all manner of excuse and delay, you appear
before the Judge of our Circuit Court , on theforthwith 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 Pierre (of color) is
plaintiff and Gabriel S.Chouteau
defendant on the part of defendant
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 28th day of April
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
forty. seven Jno Ruland Clerk C.C.

Pierre
vs
Chouteau

Sub for Deft

F.T.Renaud

forthwith

Executed April 28th
1847 by reading

Samuel Conway
SheriffBy Geo Stevens
Depty F. $ 0.50

1

Pierre (of color)
vs
Gabriel S Chouteau

Suit for freedom
April Term 1847

Testimony of Pltff

Pascal Cerré says- I knew the colord
woman Rose the mother of Pierre While
living; and I also know Pierre -

I knew her in Mackinaw in the year 1794 or
1795- I cant now recollect
with certainly which years it was; but I
think it was in 1794- I cant say whether
Mackinaw was then under the English Govenment
or not- I first saw Rose in
Mackinaw in the possession of Mr.. Ettienne
Campion and in his kitchen. I dont know
how long she remained at Mackinaw

I found her then when I arrived there and
I left her then when I came away I think-
I dont know certainly whether she or I
left first- I never saw her at any other
place in the N WTerritory- I was born in
Montreal but left then when I was four
years old. I was there again in 1781 and
again in 1791. I was very well acquainted
in Montreal and also in Quebec . I do not
know that slavery existed in Canada , nor did
I ever know any slaves then except the ones,
that my father took there. My father traded
from St Louis to Montreal and on one occasion
he took two slaves with him to Montreal -
Sometimes he took slaves to the and

then left them untill he returned, because
he was afraid to take them into Canada
with him. There were not many negroes
in Canada , and the two that my father
took them were a great curiosity to the
British Officers and others- The negros which
we took there were very large and firm look
-ing men. I do not know whether there was
or not any slavery then- I never knew
any slaves then except the one's above
mentioned which we took there. I remained
at Mackinaw at the time that I was there
about a month, and I believe that
Rose was there during that time. At that
time Maj an American officer was in at
Mackinaw and had American soldiers with him.

Cross examined

The last time I visited Montreal was in
1791. and the last time I visited Mackinaw
was in 1798. I was then in that year and
found the Americans in possession of that
place. Mr Campion was a trader.
When my sister returned from St Louis
to Canada in 1791 she took with her
a slave. She took her as a slave, and
to do the duties of a slave, such work
as slaves generally do. I returned to
Canada in 1791 and came back to St. Louis
in 1794. I know nothing of the slave
my sister took with her after she got
them. she did not live in Montreal but

2

3

some distance this side of that place
the slaves which my father took with
him to Canada in 1791 remained with
him there for several months. The time
that my father took his two slaves
with him to Canada was in 1791 and
they remained in Montreal for a month
or more and went whereever they pleased-
They were on the paradeground frequently
sometimes every day. I dont know when
Rose came from Montreal. Rose never
told me where she came from, nor have
I ever herd from any one. After I saw
Rose at Mackinaw , I next saw her at
in St Louis , I cant say when that was.
She was then the slave of Mr.. Didier a priest.
and was afterwards sold to Mr. Chouteau .
I dont recollect of seeing but two other
negroes at Mackinaw , and they had been
captured and taken them by the Indians.

Peter Payant says I knew a color
woman some years ago named Rose as
she was at that time living with Mr.
Chouteau of St Louis . I never knew her
in any other place- I was bound in
Canada in 1770 and in 1784 when I was
in my 14th year I left them. I was very
well acquanited in Montreal and never
saw a blck person untill I came to this
County. The first negros I can saw were
the negros of old Mr. Cerré about the time

I started to come to this Country and I
was very much frightened at their appearance.
There was no slavery in Canada . When
I came from Canada to this Country I
came by the way of Mackinaw , and from
thence to Praire du Chien . At that time there
were very few houses in Praire du Chien , there
was no fort or soldiers there. I never
was there afterwards- # # Cross examined I came to this Country
in the Boat of old Mr. Cerré . The old gentle
-man was not along. Mr. Gabriel Cerré
came afterwards- I lived about 3 leagues
south of Montreal on this side of the
St Lawrence river- I never was in Quegec
and never was even in the lower end of
Montreal - When I went then, I generally
went to market- I learnt my trade there,
that of a blacksmith- I commanded my
trade when I was 7 years old and stayed
there untill I was 14 years old when I
left for this Country - I was never much
acquainted with Rose - I saw her several
times at Mr.. Chouteau ,s

- says- I dont
know Rose - I was born at Quebec or
within a few miles of that- place- I am
75 years of age and I left Canada 54
years ago- I was about 23 years old when
I left for this Country , and had always
lived there untill I left for this Country

4

5

The usages of that Country were that
people had to work to live- I knew
nothing of slavery there- I never saw but
2 negros then, and I never know any
slaves- I was a forman then and never
traveled over the Country much-
I frequently went from parish to parish-
I lived in Quebec two years and never saw
any slaves there- When I came to this
Country , I came by Montreal and stayed
there several days to get canoes

There were no slaves in Canada , they
generally hired white persons- There was
no ohter slavery there, thsn the
slavery of white people being hired to others-
If slavery had existed there I should
have known it- When I came to this
country I came by Mackinaw and stoped
there about one month and from there
to Praire du Chien and remained there
about one month- Praire du Chien was
then a small village, a trading post -
there was no fort then at that time-
This was about 1794. There were no Indians
there at that time- There were Indians officers
then but no others- As nearly as I can
recollect there were 10 or 15 houses there
at that time and they were covered with
bark- Some of them however were built
of logs and covered with - I was
then again about 15 years ago- I come
to St Louis about 53 or 54 years ago

The first time I came to Praire du Chien I
returned from there to Mackinaw and from
thence to , and from thence to
Mackinaw again, and from thence to St
Louis - I did not remain long enough
in Mackinaw either time that I was
there to make many acquaintances-

Cross Examined

I spent the first winter after I came
to Mackinaw up the Missouri and
came down in the following spring to
Praire du Chien and from then I went
to Mackinaw - I came to Praire du Chien
because my employer came there & he
came there to trade with the Indians-
We traded with the Indinas while we
were up the river, and we came by
Praire du Chien because it was on our
road- We stoped at Praire du Chien to
trade- We had no other motive- The
English had prossesson of Praire du Chien
and also at Mackinaw at this time-
We got our provisions at Mackinaw
consisting of tallow and corn- We also
took provisions at Praire du Chien both
going and coming- I do not know
the distance from Praire du Chien to Mackinaw -
It took us from one to two months to
travel it, and we went may be 20 or 15
or 10 miles per day- There was a place
called greenbay between Praire du Chien

6

7

and Mackinaw and this was the only
place where white people were to be found
between the two places - I never traveld
much in Canada - I rode 6 or 7 leagues
may be in a sleigh from Quebec before
I left that country - I went to School
a little and learned to write a little

Examination in Chief resumed
when we wintered up the Miss river we
wintered on the right hand side going
up on the river the people
who lived at Praire du Chien at the time
I was there were all Canadians

Michel says - I knew the
negro woman Rose - I know at Mr.
Choteaus in his yard - I never knew
her untill I saw in St Louis - I was
born in Quebec and am 69 years of age
and lived there 17 years - I lived about
15 leagues from Quebec - I never lived in
Quebec but have been there often and have
traveled through the County often - Slavery
never existed there - I never knew any
thing about slaves in that Country - If
slavery had existed then I would have
known it certainly & it would have been
known by my ancestors - I lived for
6 years about 3leagues from Montreal
and then was no slavery at Montreal

and I have never known any in Canada and I
have travled all over that County - I was often
at Montreal - I may be that I saw negros
these but there wereno slaves there - I left
Montreal and came to this Country - I have
never seen Praire du Chien - I came to
St Louis 47 years ago

Cross Examined

I cant read nor write - I am unable to
state the particular places through which I
have traveled in Canada - I was a sailor
and went up and down the river - I did not
know all the persons in Canada nor but a
very small portion of them - when I say that
there was no slavery in Canada , I mean that
I never knew any - I never traveled much
by land in that Country & was never on
the lakes

Jacques Boneau says I do not know
Rose - I know since I have been
here - I was born in Canada - I cant
say in what year I was born - I am
65 years old - I was going on 21 years
of age when I left Canada - I lived
at or near assumption until I left Canada
I was at Montreal but once Montreal
is 10 leagues from assumption so I have
heard - I never saw any negros there

8

therewere no slaves there - I never
knew any slavery then I suppose that
if slavery existed then I should have
known it - I worked for the farmers
in Canada - I came through Mackinaw
when I came to this Country - I did
not remain in Mackinaw long - I
arrived on Saturday night & left on
Monday morning - I did not come
by Praire du Chein I never was
there.

Cross examined

I cant read nor write - I was not
to a trade in Canada , I worked
on a farm - I was not generally
acquainted with the people in Montreal
I think I was going on 21 years of
age when I came to this country
I think it was in 1802, it was the
year when the Americans took possession
of the Country - I was 3 months coming
from Canada to this Country & I
arrived home at the end of august

Michel Marli

says
I knew Rose - I have
known her in Mr. Chouteaus yard
I first knew Rose in Mackinaw
I cant tell what year, I did not notice
the year - I used to voyage to Mackinaw
It was 51 or 52 years ago - she was
cook for the head men - I knew no
master for she waited for the bosses
& cooked for them - I knew Mr. Todd
there & at New Orleans & also one of his
- I dont know Mr Todd given
name - I dont know how long she had been
there - I went to Mackinaw for Mr.
&stayedsome 10 or 12 days & left
for Praire du Chien in Mr. employment & came
back to St Louis & then went to Louis
ville
& from then to Kaskaska&these
went to Praire du Chien whenI
found Rose - I do not know when
she left Canada I was too young
I dont know when Mr. Todd left
Canada He did a good deal of
business& was a rich man

I was at Mackinaw before I saw
Rose When I first went to Macki
naw I did not seeMr. Todd there
nor did I see Rose &I came to St Louis
&returned to Mackinaw for me
& then I saw Rose . I left Rose at
Mackinaw came down here then went

10

11

to Louisville & then went back to
Praire du Chien & then saw Rose -
It might have been a month & a half
or two months from the time I left
her before I found her at Praire
du Chien - Mr. Todd was at Praire
du Chien & was preparing to send
his goods up the river

I did not hear her spoken of as a slave-
she did nothing else but cook for the
Bosses & for 15 or 20 men. she acted
as a servant I cant say whether they
paid her or not. In those days the
engage were all servants, they were
white like ourselves I an not able
to state how long Rose remaind at
Praire du Chien I have been there
some 20 times- I saw her there twice
the last time I saw her there
I went up as far as the river
& engaged myself to & went
to Praire du Chien & there I found
between the two times that I sawher
at Praire du Chien there was perhaps
a month - Inever saw her there after
this time. She was not there when I first
went to Praire du Chien . WhenI first went to Praire du Chien I stayed 7 or 8
days the last time about 3 days I came
from Mackinaw to Praire du Chien stayed
10 or 15 days & then went to Louisville for
Mr.Dent I was born in Canada
I think I am 76 or 77 years of age

I was 10 years old when I left Canada
I was born in the suburbs of St. Lawrence
itadjoins Montreal - I saw 2 negros
in Montreal We were at work in the
field and saw those 2 negros coming
& thought it was the devil & away
we went - I cant tell what years I
came to Praire du Chien
my father had me brought
to Mackinaw by Mr Campion & I
came to Praire du Chien by
eye&was then 10 years of age
I remained heer a year and my
father sent me back to Canada
because I was too lonesome.
I stayed about one year in Canada
& was thinking about my father &
thought if i loose him I may not
be able to get another &
came back

cross

The English were in Mackinaw
when I first saw it
I was 10 years old & when I went
back they were still in possession
In the fall I made to
& returned in the spring & they
went to Mackinaw I was then 17
or 18 years of age Rose was not there
then - I saw her afterwards a year
where I went for I was then 15

12

13

years of age - when I was with Mr. Chouteau
there I believe I saw Rose then
the english were there then - I remember
them well they put mein jail two or
there times the troops they made
me guard and at that time an Indian
attempted to Come ashore & we prevented him
and beat him with our guns

Mr. Campion was not an officer he was
one of the bosses or head trader
I dont know where Mr Todd was from
but I suppose from england he was
a good man & is dead. died at
Praire du Chien was a small
but a pretty place - There were a devlish
right too many Indaians there, we
either had to kill them or they would
kill us - There were places below,
trading posts
river There were no troops at
Praire du Chien inthose days but
long afterwards there were some
there the english troops that come up
to Praire du Chien Before the troops
came there the people at Praire du Chien
were Canadian English &indians, too
many of them there was no fortification
at Praire dn Chien in those early days
we made friends with the Indians
gave them a good many things &
traded with them wemet them going
up the river&gaveflourtobaco& c
& made friends with them
I knew Rose I dont know whether
she was held in slavery or not -
she was held in slavery or not
she was in Mr. Choteaus yard
she was then as the other negros
I dont knowwhether she was a
slave or not

I knew there in the yard like
the others - The negros were all there
as Mr. Choteaus negros - I dont
know whether they they were slaves or
not

The above & foregoing is a full & substan
tial report of the testimoney of witness produced
in open courtin this cause on the part of
plff

Prim (of color)
vs
G.S.Choteau
Report of
Testimony for
plff

P Cerré P Pazant R M J Boneau M Marli Filed april 29th 1847
Jno Ruland clerk.fee 8.68

1

Pierre [of color]
vs
Gabriel S Chouteau

Suit for freedom
April Term 1847

Defts Testimony

Antonie Smith says-

I was born at St.Francois in Canada
about 60 miles from Montreal -
I am 76 going on 77 years of age -
I came to St Louis 57 years ago last
August. I was partly raised at
Montreal - I left St Francois where I
was 3 years old & went to Montreal
& remained there 17 years- When I was
there I knew some slaves there for
about 10 years- I know slaves
in two families, in two houses.
Col Closs had four & Magr Camp
bell had there. These are all that
I knew- I Know

I knew Mr. St. George , he had one
slave a I lived about 100
yards from Col Closs - I saw these slaves
every day- I went to Mr. C after
enough & when I left Canada they
were still at Col Closs. They were
men, 4 men, one of them was his
Coachman & the others waited about
the house- I came to this Country
by the big river in a backcanoe &
I was 20 years of age when I left
Canada - I came by Mackinaw &
remained there one month
the English were there at that time
& had a very fine fort and soldiers
I dont know who was in command-
I did not stop at Praire du Chien . I

without stoping- I knew- Rose in
St Louis at Mr. Chouteau's -

She was held in slavery by Mr. Chouteau
who bought her of Mr. Didier

Cross examined

Col Closs was a Col in the English
army and was in command at
Montreal in garrison. I do not
know when he came from to Montreal -
There were no negros in St. Francois
I never saw any out of Montreal -
I dont know wether they were slaves
for life or only for a time-
I have knowledge of slavery by havi
ng heard it spoken of in Canada .
I have heard it several times that
Indians were sometimes slaves in
Canada . I dont know any thing
about slavery except what I heard
Col Campbell was a Maj over
the Indians, he was married to

He lived in the City-
The slaves of Col Closs & Campbell
were living on sundays but not
on week days- Their cloths were
with red & yellow

2

3

Col Closs & Campbell were
English gentleman. Them negros
were well treated and like other white
servants

Madame Tisson says

I was born in the City of
Montreal & I am now 78 years, of
age- I was born there & when I left,
I left with my husband & three
childrem. It is very easy to tell take
46 from 78. I had three children
when I left, two of them aredead
the other is living, his name is
Francois . The elder one? dead
He was born in the month of
Feb. & I started in the month of
May- That child was an infant
when I arrived in St. Louis . He
was born - Feb & I started in May-
I think he must be 47 or 48 years of
age he has his certificte of baptism
(a paper is produced) This is a paper
That I cut it off from a sheet of Baptis
mal records & gave it the Francois as
his, I cut it off long time ago to
give it to Francois & wrapped it up
& gave it to him about 3 years ago
The entrys in the book are all made
in the same manner as a matter

of satisfaction. It was cut off
from a blank leaf from a copy
book. he wrote it down when they
come into the world- I knew Rose
at Montreal . I knew her at St Louis
when she was at Mr. August Chouteau
She had been there 4 days when I left
Montreal , with that one who had
got her in exchange Joseph Berling
uette I never knew her untill she came
to our house. She stayed at her
Masters who had got her . I was
at Berlinguette house when she arrived
at her masters house. I was there on
a visit the wife of Jos. Berlguette
was my aunt. When I testified
before I said 45 but when I went
house I found it was 57. I was
mistaken, It was 57 years ago
that I knew the negres. The exchange
I mean is this, that he had swapped
a house for her on the public place-
Rose at that time was a woman of
perhaps from 18 to 20 years of age.
I dont know when Rose came
from to Montreal . I never interes
ted myself about the matter, but
these were members of slaves brought
there & were exchanged off on the
public square. there were two
American families who had slaves

4

5

I knew them juit so. I know there untill
I quit there. there were two American
families that had come there with
slaves & I did not know any more
I worked at the tailor. It was at
our house that they got the work done
for the slaves during the whole year. It
was for several years I stayed there
5 years & we always worked for
them. the
first time- I saw her here it was at Mr..
Chouteaus - I had been a long time
in this County when Rose Came here.
(Ques. by deft counsel) was Berlinguette the owner
of Rose when you left Montreal ?
(objected to by pltffs counsel)
Ans- he was- When I left 57 years
ago it was in the Spring- I was
not at Berlinguette at any time after
Rose came there to live- I lived
in the city and my Aunt lived in
the suburb. I had not time to
visit her before I left. Rose
came to our house in St Louis I did
not even ask her with whom
she lived- I remembered Rose as
hearing seen her in Montreal - I did
not speak to her about being in
Montreal - I never spoke to her
about it. she came to see me
became she had seen me at my
aunts. We never talked about

how Rose got out here. I had
a son by the name of Antonie the frist

Cross examined one born
in this Country I cant tell exactly
how long it was after I came to this
Country , it may be about 18 months
or 2 years between him & Francois
he is dead-

Cross examined.

My gave a brown horse a
pacing horse for Rose , a very
handsomhorse he was a man
that was fond of horses, he was a
trader in horses a kind of of horse
jocky it was a handsom Canadian
poney it was not a stallion-
Rose had the appearance of making
a stout woman- She was not
disagreeable for a slave of her
color, She was not black, black but
she was a kind of yellowish
Mr. Berlinguette came back to the house
with Rose after her had made the
exchange, I did not hear him say
any thing agout a good bargain. I
did not stay- MrBerlingluette
said he made the exchange on
the public square I dont know
any thing about the exchange except
what he told my Aunt where he
came back

6

7

I did not stay at my Aunts long
I did not stay a day, it may be
it was about three hours - I had none
of my children with me - I had
left them all at home - I had not
seen Mr. Berlinguette that day before
he came back with Rose - I stayed
there about an hour after he came
home with Rose and then I went home
Rose did not in the house long -
she asked to go down into the kitchen
and went. I saw her not more than
five minutes - There were but two
American familes then at that time
who had slaves I had know no
others - Their names were Col Campbell
and Col Closs - They came to Montreal
in 1784 when the English took possession
of that place - They were both officers
and had uniform cloths - Their
servant wore uniform cloths also
to distinguish the families. The cloths
of one family were faced with red and
the other with yellow - Their cloths were
made at our shop for 5 years and
untill I left for this county - he made
their cloths in the fall and spring
I dont know exactly the time when this
was we commenced making thier cloths
when they first came there and continued
for 5 years - Then slaves were all
black - I did not know any Indian
slaves in Canada , never saw any
I have heard speak of them but never
saw any - I knew them as slaves only
from themselves and by their masters
calling them so - I had known white
servants male and female they were
hired - They were hired persons, who
were able to hire, had servants, and
those who were not did not have
any - I know they were hired by their
masters telling me so I called them
servants or domestics - I never saw
any other slaves except these at
Col Closs & Col Campbell I never
saw any other slaves in Canada ,
nor any other black people there
I never saw any slaves sold at the
public square and never heared of
any except this one Rose - I had
no formalacquaintance with either
Col Closs or Col Campbell kept
his rank and we kept oursInever
spoke to either of them - I knew Rose
the first time I saw her in St Louis -
she enquired for ,supplied>me and when she
came in I knew her - I cant tell how
many years since I had seen her at
Montreal It was more than ten years
I did not that she was in St Louis - I
had heared some body say that Rose
had been along the Illinois river
but did not know where

8

some person told me so - I never had
much communication with slaves, nor
with negros. I have stated before
that it must 56 or 57 years since
I left Montreal - I am 67 years
of age. I may have been about
25 years of age when I came to this
country. I had three children when
I came. My youngest was François ,
he was at the breast, I was well
acquainted in Montreal . I served for
every body. I did not go out
much I had too much work, and
prefered staying at home.

Examination in Cheif resumed
I never saw the horse that was exch
-anged
for Rose . When the horse was
missing from the yard, I asked where
he was, and he told me that he had
exchanged him for Rose . I saw the
horse some three week, before when
i was there.

Pascal Cerré - says
Madam Trifon came here in the fall
of 1789 as will as I recollect.

Pltffpursues certificate of

Articles of Capitulation read in evidance

Pascal Cerré
Pltff.

Clop examine by

I went to Canada in 1791
in company with Mm. Choteau - This
year My father went then with his
negros. I never knew him to take
any negros other then at any other time
no at any true to sell. The negros
went as hands on the boats & came
back with them. I recollect their
names. I knew Col. Clop & Col .
Campbell ,Ioncelived very close
to them. I was only 8 years old when
Iknew Clop &Iwas 19 or 20 when
Iknew Campbell .Idon'tknow
whethereither of them had any negros,
Ibelieve Clop had a negro, but
dont know whether he was a slave or not.

ExresumedbyDeft.

I knew Clop in the year 1791 & I
was 8 years old & lived close to
him.

François TriforSays

My name is Francois Trifon . The lady
who testified here yesterrday is my
Mother. I have lived of Florisent
&havesince the Americans took
possession of the County andam
57 years old am some slay

The above & foregoing is a full an
substantial report of the testimony of
witness produced in open court in this
Cause

M.TruthBeporte

Piere [of color]
vs
G.G.Chouteau

Report of
Testimony for
Deft.

A Smith
had Tison
P Crre
# Tison Filed April 29th 1847 Jn. Ruland clerk fee 5.40

County of St. Louis , Ss.
The State Of Missouri ,To Paschal Cerré Rowan Dufrene Michel Marlé
Michel Fontaine Pierre Rieute& Jaques Boneau Greeting:

You are hereby commanded, that setting aside all manner of excuse and delay, you appear be-
fore our Circuit Court , for the County aforesaid, on the Seventh day
of June 1848 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 Pierre (of color) is
plaintiff and Gabriel S . Chouteau is
defendant on the part of the plaintiff
and herein you are in no wise fail.

Witness, John Ruland , Clerk of our said Court, with
the seal thereof hereto affixed, at office in the City of St .
Louis , this 26th day of May
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
forty - eight Jn Ruland Clerk C. C.

Executed June 6th 1848 (Except
Marle Fontaine &Beaun not found

Samuel Couny
SheriffBy Guer Struem
DeptyFee $1.80 2.20

Pierre
vs
Chouteau

Spa
X Cerré
Marlé X Dufreur
\\ Fortaine
X Riante X
X Jaqus
// BoueanTo 7th June 48

County of St. Louis , Ss.
The State Of Missouri ,To Maucois Fouché Joseph Reece
and Mr. Cuigan Mr.Larivine Greeting:

You are hereby commanded that setting aside all manner of excuse and delay, you appear be-
fore our Circuit Court for the county aforesaid, on the Seventh day
of June 1848 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 Pierre (of color) 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 5th day of June
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
forty - eight Jn Ruland Clerk, C. C.

Executed June 6 or 1848by reading to
Francois Feuche (thebalance not )

LummlConrySheriffBGeon.Strum DeptyFee $ 80

In Circuit Court

Pierre
vs
Chouteau


X Francois Fouché
Joseph Recin& M . Cuiguian


in
for 7th June
M. Larivierre
in City

County of St.Louis , Ss.
The State Of Missouri ,To Antoine Smith Marianne Tison , Frs Tison
Michel Marly, F.J . Renad
Greeting:

You are hereby commanded, that setting aside all manner of excuse and delay, you appear be-
fore our Circuit Court , for the county aforesaid, on theforthwith
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 Pierre is
plaintiff and G. S. Chouteau is
defendant on the part of deft,
and herein you are in no wise to fail:
and said Frs Tison
to bring with him the
family bible or book
showing his age

Witness, John Ruland , Clerk of our said Court, with
the seal thereof hereto affixed, at office, in the City of St .
Louis , this 14th day of June
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
forty- eight Jno Ruland Clerk C.C.

Executed June 17th 1835
except Renaud and

Samuel Conway
SheriffBy
Depty f $ 1.60

15th

Pierre
vs
G S.Chouteau .

Sub. for deft,forthwith
for

Antonie Smith Marianne Tison Francois Tison F.J.Renaud (said Francois Tison
to bring with him
the family bible or
book showing his age) The Tisonshave in
Florisant

County of St.Louis , Ss.
The State Of Missouri ,To Michel Marli
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 19th day of June
1848at 9 o clock 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 Pierre (of color) is
plaintiff and Gabriel S Chouteau
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 11th day of June
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
forty- eight Jno Ruland Clerk C.C.

Pierre (of color)
vs
Chouteau

Jn Morley (dead)

not found in my
County

Samuel Conway
SherffBy Geo Stevens
Deptynonest 10 cts/1

County of St.Louis , Ss.
The State Of Missouri ,To Michael Fortain
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 22 of June
1848 at 9 o clock 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 Pierre (of color) is
plaintiff and Gabriel S Chouteau
defendant on the part of Plff
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 21st day of June
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
forty- eight Jno Ruland Clerk C.C.

Executed

Samuel Conway Shff fee 50 cts

Circuit Court
Pierre (of color)
vs
G. S.Chouteau

Michael Fortain 22nd In town

Pierre (of color)
vs
Gabriel Chouteau

In the St Louis Circuit
Nov Term A D 1848To the Hon A Hamilton
Judge of Said Court,

The undersigned late sheriff
of the County of St Louis in the State of Missouri
would respectfully represent to your Honor. That when he
came into office he found the above cause pending in
this Court and by virtue of his office had the charge of
above named plaintiff at the April Term of this
Court A D 1847 to wit on the 4th day of May 1848 an order was made for the Sheriff
to hire out said plaintiff under the regulation of the
Statutes of Missouri in such Case made and provided,
that in obdience to said order said plaintiff was hired
out at small wages untill about the first of April
A D 1848, finding himself unable to hire out said
plaintiff any longer said plaintiff was by me delivered
over to the Jailer of the County of St Louis where he
still remains, at the charge of the said late Sheriff,
The present Sheriff haveing refused to take the charge &
control of said plaintiff.

Being of opinion that I cannot
legally any longer have the charge of plaintiff I would
therefore ask that an order may be made directing
the present Sheriff to take charge of said plaintiff and
do with him as the jail shall and that the late
Sheriff may no longer be encumbered with business property
belonging to his sucessor

all of which is respectfully submitted

Sam, Conway Late Sheriff

Saml Conway's
petition to be discharged
from the
of Pierre

Filed Dec 1 1848 J Ruland clk

County of St.Louis , ss.
The State Of Missouri ,To Paschal Cerré , Rierre Riante Rowan
Larivierre , Francosis Fouché Joseph
, St Ange Michel Fortain
Michel Marlí, Jaques Beauneau
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 thirty first day
of Janyuary 1849 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 Pierre (of color) is
plaintiff and Gabriel S Chouteau
defendant on the part of the Plaintiff
and herein you are in no wise to fail.

Witness, Wilson Primm, Clerk of our said Court,
with the seal thereof hereto affixed, at office, in
the City of St. Louis , this 24th
day of January in the year of our Lord
one thousand eight hundred and forty. nine Wilson Primm Clerk C.C.

Executed this subpeona
in the County of on
the 29th day of Jan 1849
on Peter Pi Joseph
Michael Fortaine
Laravierre

( Michael Marli
St Ange
Rowan
Jaques Bouneau not found)

Louis L By

In Circuit Court

Pierre
vs
Chouteau

S .p.a.Raschal Cerré Michel Marli Roman Defre
Larivierre Jaques Bouneau
(in city) Pierre Riante Joseph Michel Fontaine Francois Fouché

St Ange
(in Florisant ) for the 31st Jany 1849
5

County of St.Louis , ss.
The State Of Missouri ,To Antoine Smith , Madame Tison , Francois
Tison , F.J,Renand ,
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 31st January 1849
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 Pierre is
plaintiff and Gabl S Chouteau is
defendant on the part of deft
and herein you are in no wise to fail.

Witness, Wilson Primm, Clerk of our said Court,
with the seal thereof hereto affixed, at office, in
the City of St. Louis , this 25th
day of January in the year of our Lord
one thousand eight hundred and forty- nine Wilson Primm Clerk C.C.

Pierre
vs
Gabl S. Chouteau

Sub. for deft for
31 Jany for Antoine Smith Madame Marianne Tison Frs. Tison F.J.Renaud (Mr. & Mrs. Tison live
in Florisant )
( p 5)

Executed Jan 29th 49
Louis

By fee $ 200 150 Renand not found noneest 150 10 = 160

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

We command you to attach Antoine Smith
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 the 1st day of February 1849 1849 then
and there to testify, and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy, now pending in
our said Circuit Court , between Pierre
plaintiff, and Gabriel S.Chouteau defendant, wherein
the said witnesses has heretofore summoned
on the part of the said deft

Witness, Wilson Primm, Clerk of our said Circuit
Court , at the City of St. Louis , this 31st day of
January in the year of our Lord, one thousand
eight hundred and forty- 9 Wilson Primm Clerk C.C.

Pierre
vs
Gabriel S. Chouteau

attachemnt for deft

1st February Antoine Smith

Executed January 31st

Louis T Labeaume
ShffBy FordDep Service $ 1.00

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

We command you to attach Antoine Smith Frs. Tison , Marianne Tison
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 on 15th July 1849 then
and there to testify, and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy, now pending in
our said Circuit Court , between Pierre
plaintiff, and G. S. Chouteau defendant, wherein
the said defendant witness has heretofore been summoned
on the part of the said deft

Witness, Wilson Primm, Clerk of our said Circuit
Court , at the City of St. Louis , this 31st day of
January in the year of our Lord, one thousand
eight hundred and forty nine Wilson Primm Clerk C.C.

Pierre
vs
Gab S.Chouteau

attachment for
deft for

1st Feby for Antoine Smith Marianne Tison Frs. Tison

Executed Jan 31st 49

Louis T G Labeaume
ShffBy Depy Fee $ 2.00

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

We command you to attach Pierre , Piant Jos PrecieMr Fortaine
Mr Cuiguian
by their bodies and them safely keep, so that you have their 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 first day of February 1849 then
and there to testify, and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy, now pending in
our said Circuit Court , between Pierre (of color)
plaintiff, and Gabriel S. Chouteau defendant, wherein
the said Piante, Precie, Fortaine & Cuiguian have heretofore been summoned
on the part of the said plaintiff

Witness, Wilson Primm, Clerk of our said Circuit
Court , at the City of St. Louis , this 31st day of
January in the year of our Lord, one thousand
eight hundred and forty nine Wilson Primm, Clerk C.C.

In the Circuit Court

Pierre
vs
Chouteau

Attachments

PiantePrecie Cuiguian Fortaine
for 1st Feb 49

Executed this
1st Feb 1849 by
bringing P Piante
& Mr Fortaine in
Court Mr.Precie
sick, Cuigan
is dead

Ls Labeaume
ShffBy E N Shanes
Dpt Fee $ 3.00 non est 50 $ 3.50

State of Missouri
County of St Louis
ss.

Personally appeared before
me the undersigned in the city and county
of St.Louis and State of Missouri , Lewis H .
Martin and William H Kerrick who
being by me first duly sworn upon their
oath say that they one, the one the keeper and
the other the deputy keeper of St. Louis vounty
jail, that Pierre a man of color has been
in said jail for about ten months
that there affiants have seen him almost
daily during that time, and have observed
his conduct, that in the opinion of
these affiants he is at times of unsound mind and
insane; and the said Kerrick states that he
believesfromwhat he has seen of said
Pierre and his conduct, that he believes him
to have been insane the whole time of
his incarceration; that said Pierre is the same
who is now suing for his freedom in the
St Louis Circuit Court .

Lewis H Martin Wm H. Kerrick Subscribed & sworn to before
me this 17th February 1849 Wilson Primm clk

Affida of
Martin & Kerrick

Pierre of color
vs
Chouteau

Filed February 17. 1849 Wilson Primm clk

Pierre (of Color)
vs.
Gabriel S . Chouteau

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 evidance in above
cause, on the part of defendant will be taken at the office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court , at the
Court House
in the County of St Louis and State of Missouri on the sixth
day of February 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 between the same hours, till completed.

Gabriel S. Chouteau by his attorneys.

Pierre of Color
vs
Gabriel S Chouteau

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

Louis T . Lebeaume ShffBy H Brown Depty fee 50 c

State of Missouri
County of St Louis
ss

Personallyappeared
before me the undersignedclerk of the
Circut Court of St Louis County
David H . Bishop who being ofuse
first duly sworn upon his oath says
that he was a deputysheriffunder
Samuel Councy sheriff of St Louis
serving for two years previous to
August last; that he knows Pierre
of color, whose suit for freedom
vs Gabriel S Chouteau is now
pending in the Circuit Court of
St Louis county; that the said Pierre
was to the sheriff Councy
about the 5th day of April
1848.by the Mr. Churchill who then
had him, on account of his
strangeconduct; that the time for
which he was hired to said Churchill
had notthenexpired, but he was
unwillinglonger to keephim
butchoserather to pay his bond in
jail and his hireand lose the
service he was able to ;
that the sheriff was unable to hire
him out afterwards to any one.

sworn to and subscribed
before us this 6th March
1847. Wilson PrimmClk D. H . Bishop

Pierre
vs
Chouteau

Affidavit

Filed March 6. 1849 Wilson Primm Clerk

County of St. Louis , Ss.
The State of Missouri ,To Antonie Smith -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 17 day of December
then and there to testify and the truth to say in a certain cause pending in said Court, wherein
Pierre (of color) is plaintiff and Gabriel S . Chouteau is
defendant, on the part of the Deft
and herein you are in no wise to fail.

Witness, Michael S. Cerré , Clerk of our said
Court, with the seal thereof hereto affixed, at
office in the city of St. Louis , this 15
day of December in the year of our
Lord eight hundred and fifty oneMS Cerre Clerk.

Antonie Smith

County of St. Louis , Ss.
The State of Missouri ,To Francis Tison -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 17 day of December
then and there to testify and the truth to say in a certain cause pending in said Court, wherein
Pierre (of color) is plaintiff and Gabriel S . Chouteau is
defendant, on the part of the Deft
and herein you are in no wise to fail.

Witness, Michael S. Cerré , Clerk of our said
Court, with the seal thereof hereto affixed, at
office in the city of St. Louis , this 15th
day of December in the year of our
Lord eight hundred and fifty oneMS Cerre Clerk.

Francis Tison
Present

County of St. Louis , Ss.
The State of Missouri ,To Md Marianne Tison -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 17th day of December
then and there to testify and the truth to say in a certain cause pending in said Court, wherein
Pierre (of color) is plaintiff and Gabriel S . Chouteau is
defendant, on the part of the Deft
and herein you are in no wise to fail.

Witness, Michael S. Cerré , Clerk of our said
Court, with the seal thereof hereto affixed, at
office in the city of St. Louis , this 15
day of December in the year of our
Lord eight hundred and fifty oneM.S. Cerre Clerk.

Md Marianne Tison
Present

In St Louis Circuit Court .

Pierre of Colour
vs
Gabriel S. Chouteau

The said Gabriel S. Chouteau moves the Court for
an order on William Milburn Esq late Sheriff of
St Louis County to render an account to this Court
of the hiring of said Pierre by said Milburn
under the former order of said Court in this cause

Field , Attorney
for Chouteau

Pierre
vs
Chouteau

Motion by Chouteau for
an order on Milburn
late Sheriff to render
an account of the hiring
of Pierre

filed 17th June 1852M. S. Cerre Clk

State of Missouri
County of S Louis
Sch.

Be it remembered that on this
21st day of August 1852 personally
appeared Charles H Mercier before
me the undersigned Justice of the
Peace, and the said Mercier being
duly sworn, upon his oath states
that Pierre the plaintiff in the
suit of Pierre (of color) vs Gabriel S
Chouteau has been restrained by
the defendant Gabriel S . Chouteau
and a man named Bartlett
of the reasonable liberty of attending
his Counsel & the Court; that said
Pierre has been subjected to severity
on account of his application
for freedom, that on Friday the
13th Aug 1852 said Pierre was
locked up in a cell of the jail
of the County of St Louis & whipped
violently on account of his claim
for freedom, that on Monday the
16th Aug 1832 plaintiff's Counsel
was prohibited & that at or about
ten o clock in the evening of said
last mentioned day, said Chouteau
& Bartlett took Pierre away
from said jail & concealed him

C H Mercier Sworn to and subscribed before
me this21st day of August 1852 Peter WJustice
of thePeace

In the St Louis Cir Court

Pierre
vs
Chouteau

Affidavit of Chas H Mercier
that pff was subjected to severity
&c,&concealed by deft.

Filed Oct 22nd 1852M. S Cerre Ck.

Pierre
vs
Chouteau

In the S Louis Circuit
Court
April Term 1852

and now comes the said
plaintiff by Cobbs his attorney and
moves the Court to set aside the order
of dismissal made in this suit and
to reinstate the same on the docket
for a trial on its merits for the following
reasons viz:

1st Because the order of dismissal
was made when W Field , one of plaintiffs
counsel had removed from the state,
Hall the other was dead, and the
plaintiff was confined in jail, having
been in prison there ever since the 5th
day of april 1848.

2nd Because this Court has given
a judgement of liberation in favour of this
plaintiff against this defendant &
the evidance of this plaintiffs right to
a reaffirmance of that judgement is
on file in this suit.

3rd Because a refusal of a trail of
this suit for freedom on its merits
is a violation of the compromise
being the statutes of the United States &
against the peace & dignity of the
state of Missouri , as also of the Union

Cobb
atty.


In the Circuit Court

Pierre
vs
Chouteau

motion to
dismissal & reinstate
the suit.

filed July 3rd 1852
Clk
H Cobb
Pfs Atty.

In the matter of Pierre a man of color,
who is confined in the jail of the County of St Louis ,
by reason of the inability of the sheriff to hire
him out, as a plaintiff in an action for
freedom against Gabriel S . Chouteau .

It now to the Satisfacion
of the Court that the former order of this
Court for the removal of said Pierre to the
County farm, cannot be carried into effect
by reson that the county court has not
: and the court being also
satisfied that the same charge for his
removal from persion stillexist that
is that he is summoned of to otherwise
in ill health - The court does order
that said Pierre be discharged from prison.

Pierre of Color
vs
Gabriel S Chouteau

Nov Term 1845
suit for freedom

And now on this day the
plff and the court for a
dedimus toli
to Canada east to take Deposition

Hall &
Attornys for
plff

Pierre of col.
vs
G S. Chouteau

motion for

Pierre
vs
Gariel S. Chouteau

order for dedimus on
behalf of deft to
Canada Canada

Pierre
vs
Chouteau

Pierre (of color)
vs
Gabriel S Chouteau

We the jurors in the above entitled cause
find the said Defendant is guilty of
said several trespasses in mannor&form
as the said plaintiff in his
hath alleged

Foreman

mencement

mencement Common

Commencement

mencement

Pierre (of color
vs
Gabriel S Chouteau

for application
for on order
of the Court to
place the plff at the same

on the meaning of the applic
ation in the above entitled cause
it appearing to the Court that
said Pierre is of
he is now detained in jail
the of the proper officer to
hire him out as low directed,
and that his further detention
in prison will increase and
aggravate his malady it is endorsed
and directed by the Court ,
County of the court's
consent to
that said Pierre be placed by the
sheriff at the county farm of St Louis
County .

Pierre
vs
Chouteau

It appering that the
heretofore made for living
out the plff is made on
the Sheriff the court
orders that the same be renewed&c
sheriff of St Louis County live out the Plain-
tiff&c (following the ) ( Book 13 p,433

Pierre
vs
Chouteau

A .No.1.

Before the commandant of the western part of the Illi -
nois and in default of a notary was present Mr. Andre Todd
Merchant of Contreal in Canada who by these presents has
sold and transferred now and for ever and promises to
from all troubles, gifts fointure debts, mortgages
evictions substitutions and other incumberances generally
whatsover to Mr.Dn Didier Curate of this parish &
City of St Louis purchaser here present and accepting
for himself and his heirs assigns a negress named Rose
slave aged about twenty seven years which belongs to him
as having acquired her legitimately from the estate of the
late John Stork with which he is besides charged. That
the said Mr. Dn Didier purchaser his heirs and assigns may
enjoy do with and dispose of the said negress as
of a thing to him belonging to commence the
enjoyment from this day. This sale thus made
for the price and value of eleven hundred
and eighty seven poinds and a half of deer skins
shaved & receipted, payable on the first day
of May of the next year of one thousand
seven hundred and ninety six. For
the whole delay and under penalty of all
expenses, damages and interest to which
payment, damages and interst the
said negress just sold remains by spe
cial privilege bound and mortgaged and
besides the said purchaser thereto binds
his person and his property present and
to come, transfering by the said Mr
Aundré Todd to the said purchaser all rights
of property and others which he has and
can have upon the said negress Just
sold of which he has dispossised and
desseized himself to his profit and of
his heirs and assigns. For thus it was
agreed between the parties who have signed
with messrs Antoine Soulard
and Manl Gouzal Moro with us Com
mandant of St Louis of the Illinois the twenty
eighth day of the month of October of
the year one thousand seven hundred
and ninty five.Frs Didier curate
of St Louis and Andrew Todd Ante Soulard
Manl Gouz Moro

is above supposed. and
upon the County.

E Bates


vs
&

Province of Canada

Victoria by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland Queen Defender of the Faith

To all to whom these Presents shall come Greeting

Know Ye that amongst the Rolls and Records in
the Registrar's Office of the Province of Canada in Lib: A of General Tracts, Folio
249 it is thus contracted to wit:

By the King

A Proclamation

George R .

Whereas We have taken into our Royal
consideration the extensive and valuable acquisitions in America secured to our Crown by the late definitive
Treaty of Peace concluded at Paris the 10th day of February last and being desirous that all our loving subjects
as well as our Kingdoms as of our Colonies in America , may avail themselves with all convenient speed of the
great benefits and advantages which must accruce therefore to their commerce, manufactures and Navigation.
We have thought fit with the advice of our Privy Council to issue this our Royal Proclamation, hereby to Publish
and declare to all our loving subjects, that We have with the advice of our said Privy Council granted our setters
patent under our Great Seal of Great Britain to erect within the Countries and Islands ceded and Confirmed to us
by the said Treaty four distinct and separate Governments stiled and called by the names of Quebec , East
Florida , West Florida and Grenada and limited and bounded as follows, viz

Firstly The Government of Quebec , bounded on the Sabrador Coast by the River Saint John and from thence by a
line drawn from the head of the River though the State St. John to the South end of the Lake Nipissim from whence the said

high lands which divide the Rivers that empty themselves the said River Saint Lawrence from those which fall into the
Sea and also along the north coast of the Bay des Charleurs and the coast of the Gulf of Saint Lawrence to Cape Rosieres and
from thence crossing the mouth of the River Saint Lawrence by the West end of the Island of Anticostly tormenates at the
aforesaid River Sant John .

Secondly The Government of West Florida bounded to the westward by the Gulf of Mexico and the Apalachicola
River to the northward by a line drawn from that part of the said River where the Catahouchee and Flint Rivers
meet, to the source of St Marys River and by the course of the said River to the Atlantic Ocean and to the East and South
by the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Florida including all Islands within six leagues of the sea coast.

Thirdly The Government of West Flroida bounded to the southward by the Gulf of Mexico including all
Islands within six leagues of the coast from the River Apalachicola to Lake Pontehartrain, to the westward by the
said lake, the Lake Maurepas the River Mississippi to the northward by a line drawn due East from that
part of the River Mississippi which lies in 31 Degrees North Latitude to the River Apalachicola or Catahouchee
and and to the Eastward by the said River.

Fourthly The Government of Genada comprehending the Islands of that name together with the Grenadines
and the Islands of Dominico, Saint Vincent and Tobago

And to the end that the open and free fishery of our subjects may be extended to and carried on upon the coast of
Labrador and the adjacent Islands We have thought fit with the advice of our said Privy Council to put all that
coast from the River St. Johns to Hudson's streights together with the Islands of Anticostly and Madelaine and
all other smaller Islands lying upon the said coast, under the care and inspection of our Governr of Newfoundland.

We have also with the advice of our Privy Council thought fit to annex the Islands of St. John and cape Breton
or Isle Royale with the lesser Islands adjacent thereto to our Governor of Nova Sestia.

We have also with the advice of our Privy Council aforesaid annexed to our Province of Georgia all the lands
lying between the Rivers Attamaha and Saint Marys

And Whereas it will greatly contribute to the speedy setting of our said new governments that our loving
subjects should be informed of our Paterral care for the security of the liberty and properties of those who are and
shall become inhabitants We have thought fil to publish and declare by this our Proclamation that We have in
the Letters Patent under our Great Seal of Great Britain by which the said Governments are constituted, given
express power and direction to our Governor of our said Colonies respectively that so soon as the state and
circumstances of the said Colonies will admit thereof, they shall with the advice and Consent of the members
of our Council summa and call general assemblies within the said Governments respectively, in such manner
and form as is used and directed in those Colonies and Provinces in America which are under our immediate
Government. and We have also given power to the said Governors with consent of our said Councils and the

Representatives of the People so to be summoned as aforesaid, to make, constitute and ordain Laws, Statutes and
Ordinances for the Public Peace, Welfare and good Government of our said Colonies and of the People and
Inhabitants thereof as near as may be to the Laws of England and under such Regulations and Restrictions
as are used in other Colonies, And in the mean time and until such assemblies can be called as aforesaid
all persons inhabiting in, or resorting to Our said Colonies may Confide in our Royal protection for the enjoyment of the
benefit of the Laws of our Realm of England , for which purpose We have given power under our Great Seal to
the Governors of our said Colonies respectively, to erect and Constitute with the advice of our said Councils respec-
=tively Courts of Judicature and Public Justice within our said Colonies for the hearing and determining all
causes as well criminal as civil according to Law and Equity and as near as may be agreeable to the Laws
of England , with liberty to all persons who may think themselves aggrieved by the sentence of Such Courts in all
Court cases to appeal under the usual limitations and instructions to Us in Our Council
We have also thought see with the advice of our Privy Council as aforesaid to give unto the Governors and Councils
of our said three New Colonies upon the Continent full power and authority to settle and agree with the Inha-
=bitants of our said New Colonies or to any other person who shall resort thereto for such lands, tenements and
hereditaments as are now or hereafter shall be in our power to dispose of and then to grant to any such
person or persons upon such terms and under such moderate quit rents, services and acknowledgements
as have been appointed and settled in other Colonies and under such other Conditions as shall appear to
Us to be necessary and expedient for the advantage of the Grantees and the improvement and settlement of our
said Colonies. And whereas We are desirous upon all occasions to testify our Royal sense and appro-
=bation of the conduct and bravery of the Officers and Soldiers of our Armies and to reward the same, We do
hereby command and empower our Governors of our said three New Colonies and other our Governors of our
several Provinces on the Continent of North America to grant without fee or reward to such reduced officers
as have served in North America during the late War and are actually residing there and shall personally
apply for the same the following quantities of land subject at the expiration of ten years to the same quit-rents
as other lands are subject to in the Province within which they are granted as also subject to the same
Conditions of Cultivation and improvement, viz.

To every Person having the rank of a Field Officer 5,000 Acres

To every Captain .......... 3,000 Acres

To every Subaltern or Staff Officer..... 2,000 Acres

To every Non Commission Officer....... 200 Acres

To every Private Man.......... 50 Acres

We do likewise authorize and require the Governors and Commanders in Chief of all our said Colonies
upon the Continent of North America to grant the like quantities of land and upon the same Conditions to
such reduced Officers of our Navy of like rank as served on board our Ships of War in North America
at the times of the reduction of Louisbourg and Quebec in the late War and who shall personally apply to our respective
Governors for such Grants. And whereas it is just and reasonable and essential to our interest and the
security of our Colonies that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected and who live
under our protection should not be molested or disturbed in the possession of such parts of our Dominions and
Territories as not having been Ceded to or purchased by us are reserved to them or any of them as their hunting
grounds We do therefore with the advice of our Privy Council declare it to be Our Royal will and Pleasure that no
Governor or Commander in Chief in any of our Colonies of Quebec , East Florida or West Florida do presume
upon any pretence whatever to grant Warrants of Survey or pass any Patents for lands beyond the bounds of
their respective Governments as described in their Commissions; as also that no Governor or Commander in
Chief of our other Colonies or Plantations in America do presume for the present and until our further Pleasure
of survey or for any lands being heads or sources of any of
the Rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean from the West or North West or upon any lands whatever
which not having been ceded to or purchased by us as aforesaid, are reserved to the said Indians or any of them.
And We do further declare it to be our Royal will and pleasure for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under
our Sovereignty, protection and dominion for the use of the said Indians all the land and territories not
included within the limits of our said three, New Governments or within the limits of the Territory granted to
the Hudson's Bay Company as also all the land and Territories lying to the Westward of the source of the Rivers
which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid, And We do hereby strictly forbid on pain
of our displeasure all our loving subjects from making any purchases or settlements whatever or taking possession
of any of the lands above reserved without our special leave and licence for that purpose first obtained.

And We do further strictly enjoin and require all persons whatever who have either wilfully or inadvertently
seated themselves upon any lands within the Countries above described or upon any other lands which having
not been ceded to or purchased by Us are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith to remove
themselves from such settlements. And Whereas great frauds and abuses have been committed in the
purchasing lands of the Indians to the great prejudice of our interests and to the great dissatisfaction of the said
Indians, in order therefore to prevent such irregularities for the future and to the End that the Indian's may be
convinced of our Justice and determined resolution to remove all reasonable Cause of discontent we do with
the advice of our Privy Council, strictly enjoin and require that no person do presume to make any purchase
from the said Indians of any lands reserved to the said Indians within those parts of our Colonies where
We have thought proper to allow settlement, but that if at any ttime any of the said Indians should be
inclined to dispose of the said lands, the same shall be purchased only for us, in our name at some Public
Meeting or assembly of the said Indians to be held for that purpose by the Governor or Commander in Chief of
our Colony respectively within which they shall lie; and in case they shall lie within the limits of any
proprietaries conformable to such directions and Instructions as We or they shall think proper to give
for that purpose; And We do by the advice of our Privy Council declare and enjoin that the Trade with the
said Indians shall be free and open to all our subjects whatever, provided that every person who may

incline to trade with the said Indians do take out a Licence for carrying on such trade from the Governor or
Commander in Chief of any of our Colonies respectively where such person shall reside and also give
security of observe such Regulations as We shall at any time think fit by ourselves ..... or Com-
missaries to be appointed for this purpose to direct and appoint for the benefit of the said Trade and
We do hereby authorize, enjoin and require the Governors and Commanders in Chief of all our Colonies
respectively as well those under our immediate Government as those under the Government and
direction of Proprietaries to grant such hences without fee or reward taking especial Care to insert
therein a condition that such licence shall be void and the security fortifeed on Case the Person to whom
the same is granted shall refuse or neglect to observe such Regulations as We shall think proper to
prescribe as aforesaid and we do further expressly enjoin all officers whatever as well
in the and direction of
aforesaid for the use of the said Indians, to seize and apprehend all persons whatever who standing
charged with Treasons, Misprison's of Treasons, Murders or other Felonies or Misdemeanors shall fly from
Justice and take refuge in the said Territory and to send them under a proper guard to the Colony
where the Crime was Committed of which they shall stand accused in order to take their trial for the
same.

Given at our Court at St. James's
the 7th day of October 1763 in the third
year of our Reign.

God save the King "

All which We have commanded to be exemplified.

In Testimony Whereof We have caused these our
Letters to be made Patent and the Great Seal of our said Province to be hereunto affixed. Witness our
Right Trusty and Well Beloved Lieutenant General The Right Honorable Charles Murray Earl
Cathcart of Cathcart in the County of Renfrew , K. C. B. Administrator of the Government of our Province
of Canada and Commander four Forces in British North America , &c &c &c at Montreal this
thirtieth day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand eight-hundred and forty six and in the
Ninth year of Our Reign.

By Command.

Pierre (of Colour) pllf,

Gabriel S. Chouteau Df
provoked by the
plaintiff Counsel

Pierre
vs
Chouteau

Defs for plff

Opened and filed May 21st
1846

John Ruland clk Postage 1.50 by atto Hall

Exemplification
of Royal Proclamation dated 7th
October 1763.

Recorded 1st April 1846.
Lib. A. A . Folio 214

Great Seal to 3-10

Engrossing and
Recording at
4 pm Folio 2"8"

2,400 words $ 5"18"