John Murry vs. Louis Menard and Clayton Tiffin
View original image: Page  042
[missing figure]

The plaintiff also proved by verbal testimony that
sometime about two years ago, SullivanSullivan Blood
(by the command of Louis MenardMenard , one of the defendants,
who said he was agent for same lesson in New OrleansOrleans,
who claimed John as his slave) crossed the river into
IllinoisIllinois, to get John the plaintiff that John was
delivered to him in IllinoisIllinois, by who lives
in CahokiaCahokia, that he brought him John, to StSt Louis
LouisSt Louis and put him in jail for safe keeping, where
he remained a few days (day 3 or 4) and was then
taken out and sold by MenardMenard to TiffinTiffin , the
other defendant. That TiffinTiffin had possession of him
For some time, and hired him out by the day to one
Mr. WaltonWalton from sometime in June til about
the first of August 1826. There was no proof of any pos
session of or control over the plaintiff, had on exercises
by either of the defendants, since the time last above
mentioned; It was however in proof that for a long
time past said John has been going about as
a free man, and hired himself to one of the witnesses
who spoke to TiffinTiffin another subject and received
for answer. that he, TiffinTiffin , had nothing to do
with him; adding that he, John had gained his
freedom. And no other material
was given in the cause

And therefore the defendants by their
counsel, moved the court to instruct the Jury

"That if the plaintiff be a negro, born of a negro
mother, at or near Kahokia in the now state of

View original image: Page  043
[missing figure]
IllinoisIllinois. That the mother was held in slavery by
one of the ancient French inhabitantsof that Country
before the year1787. That the plaintiff was born
and held in slavery and transmitted from hand
to hand as a slave repeatedly, from the time of his
birth, till within a few years past, there is
no law, which of itself and independently of some
act of his owner, can operate his emancipation.

Which instruction the Court refused to give as
prayed, but on the contrary, decided and instructed
the Jury that whatever might he the opinion of this
Court, if felt bound by the decision of the supreme
Court of the state to instruct them (and the court
did accordingly instruct them) that render the
circumstances mentioned in the instruction above
prayed for, the ordinance of CongressCongress passed in
the year 1787, for the government of the territory
north west of the River OhioOhio, can and does operate
the emancipation of the said John, the plaintiff.

To which opinion and decision of the Court the de
fendant by their counsel except and tender this
their bill of exceptions, and pray that the same
may be signed for a testimony, which is done

WillWill . C. CarrCarr

[missing figure]