Matilda, a free girl of color vs. Marie Louisa Rocheblave and Philip Rocheblave
View original image: Page  015
[missing figure]
MatildaMatilda , (a free girl of color)
vs
Philip RocheblavePhilip Rocheblave and
MarieMarie Louisa Rocheblave

Is In the Circuit court
3rd judicial Circuit
November Term, 1829
The county siting as a jury deft find

Be it that an the trial of
the above cause at was formed an behalf of the
plaintiff. that MatildaMatilda the plaintiff is a mulatto
girl and was born in the village of PrairiePrairie Du
RocherRocher in the late northwestern Territory, now
state of IllinoisIllinois, in the family of Mrs. Susan La
Court, alias La campt, in the year eighteen hun
dred and seven or Eight; that the Plaintiff, mother
was a negro woman, held in slavery in said vil
lage of Praerie Du RocherRocher , before and after the
13th day of July in the year 1787. and at and af
ter the birth of said matilda; that said Susan
La count was a French Inhabitant of the the
village of PrariePrairie Du rocher, at the true of
the conquest of that county by virginia, and
continued to reside in and inhabit said village of
Prarie Durocher, until the Present times that said
MatildaMatilda was claimed and held as a slave by said
Susan La Count (the owner of Plaintiffs mother)
in said village, from the time of her birth, till
same in the year Eighteen hundred and nineteen
or twenty when said Susan La count transfered
and delivered the plaintiff to Philip Rochéblave,
one of the defendants, as his slave, by way of gift
said RocheblaveRocheblave being son in law of said Su
san La count; that said Philip RocheblavePhilip Rocheblave ,
same true in the year 1820, brought said plain
tiff with him from said village of prarie Durocher
in IllinoisIllinois to St LouisSt Louis in the state of MissouriMissouri, where
she has resided ever since, in the service, & posses
sion of the defendants, as the slave of said philip.
That on the day and before and after the commence
ment of this suit, as well as at the present time,
the said defendants did and still do hold the
said plaintiff, in the county of St LouisSt Louis, in slavery
& involuntary servitude, as a slave of him the
said PhilipPhilip : And no other Evidence was given in
the cause an Either side; and the case being tried
by the court, sitting as a jury, by Correct of Par
ties, the defendants thereupon moved the court
to decide.

that if the court ( jury in the )

View original image: Page  016
[missing figure]
finds from the Evidence, that the mother of
MatildaMatilda , the Plaintiff was a negro or mulat
to woman and was legally held in slavery, be
fore and at and after the 13th day of July in the year 1787 at Prarie Durocher, in the
late north west Territory, now state of IllinoisIllinois, and that the plaintiff was born of such mother
their subsequent to the passage of an ordinance
passed by the Congress of the united states, on
the 13th July in the year 1787, entitled, âAn ordin
ance for the Government of the Territory of the
United StatesUnited States, writ of the river OhioOhio," She the plain
tiff is not [ intitled ] to recover her freedom in the
suit, which [ decission ] the court refused to make
or give to which refusal the defendants by
their counsel except.

The defendants, by their counsel, also moved
the court to decide.

2nd that that if the court (sitting as a jury in the
cause) finds from the Evidence, that the mother
of the plaintiff was a negro or mulatto wom
an, legally held in slavery before and at and
after the passage of the ordinance entitled, âan
ordinance for the Government of the Territory
of the united states, west of the river OhioOhio",
passed the 13th July 1787, by the congress of the
united states by a french inhabitant of the
village of Prarie Durocher in the late north
western Territory who was a citizen of the
same before and ofter the conquest of that
country by virginia, and that the plaintiff
was born at the village of Prarie Durocher
of such mother which so held in slavery by
such French inhabitant, though subsequent
to the passage of said ordinance, then the
plaintiff is not entitled to her freedom: which
decision the court refused to make or give, to
which refusal the Defendants by their coun
sel except, and pray the Judge to allow this
them bill of exceptions, and to sign & seal
the same for a Testimony.

[missing figure]