This is an action for freedom under the Statue of this State brought

by VincentVincent against DuncanDuncan , the defendant plead-.
ed the general issue and that the plaintiff was
a slave on to both which pleas issue was joined, &
found for the defendant and judgement was given
accordingly. To this judgement VincentVincent has
brought up the case by writ of Error.

It was in evidence that the plaintiff had been hired
to labour at the IllinoisIllinois SalineSaline near Shawnee
town from the year 1817 till the year 1825 when
he was taken and carried bound to KentuckyKentucky that
he was the reputed slave of a family in KentuckyKentucky
by the name of DuncanDuncan ; That John DuncanJohn Duncan and some
times the defendant were in the habit of going to
the saline aforesaid and hiring the plaintiff out
and receiving pay for his hire. That the plaintiff
after remaining these some time became disobedient
to James DuncanJames Duncan and discovered an unwillingness to go
to KentuckyKentucky with JamesJames Ducan and on some pre-
tence got permission of James DuncanJames Duncan to stay at
the SalineSaline to and settle his affairs; that finally he
was taken and carried by force as above mentioned
that in 1826 he was delivered by John Ducan to
the defendant to be disposed of at the defendant's
pleasure that issue the plaintiff had been in St LouisSt Louis
he had admitted himself to be the slave of JamesJames Dun
can. The Court instructed the Jury that by the
constitution of IllinoisIllinois. The plaintiff might lawfully
have been hired at the OhioOhio SalineSaline in IllinoisIllinois from
year to year without being removed to any other
State at the end of each year without âworkingâ his
emancipation.

2. If the Jury are satisfied that the owner of VincentVincent
residing in KentuckyKentucky desired to withdraw him
from the SalineSaline and attempted to do so but was
prevented by VincentVincent that in such case VincentVincent can
not recover.