Vincent Duncan vs. James Duncan
View original image: Page  067
[missing figure]

Nor even at that place, for a longer period than one
year at any one time: nor shall it be allowed there
after the year One thousand eight hundred and twenty five: any violations of this article shall effect the
emancipation of such person from his obligation to service

(To come in next after the statement of
settler's testimony)

It was further proven by Isaac AIsaac A Fletcher
that VincentVincent had had at the time of the
commencement of this suit a day and
a pair of horses which horses the witness saw
a short time afterwards in the possession
of one JonathanJonathan a person of color.

And it was further proven that VincentVincent
laboured as a in St LouisSt Louis, for several
past, apparently on account &
without the known authority & masters
of any person over him.

on things the
the of 1825 yet they not be hired
to summon there & actually remain there more
than a year at a time & actually remain
there more tan a year at a time altho
a new contract of having then made daily in
his emancipation. Plaintiff counsel
also inserted that it was Evident from the Depositions
of John & Coleman DuncanColeman Duncan that they did
not tell all they know touching the matter
in controversy. Because in those Depositions

View original image: Page  068
[missing figure]

on affiant. Was made to create the belief
that James DuncanJames Duncan was the owner of the slave
to him he was hired at the SalineSaline & that
the plaintiff defendant could get nothing for the hire of
the plaintiff & that the Plaintiff became
disobedient to his master James DuncanJames Duncan & refused
to be on the State in the to him from
then Depositions & other Evidence it appeared
that the Defendant was not the of
the plaintiff when he was hired at the SalineSaline
but that John DuncanJohn Duncan one of the Deponents
was the owner

The Courts in commiting on the evidence &
the arguments of the plantiff counsel observed in
that he feeth his duty to say to the
Jury that there was no evidence to show to
whom the plantiff belonged whom he was
hired at the IllinoisIllinois SalineSaline as aforesaid is it that
he made the Statement to the Jury as Matter of Law.X

The Defendant Counsel prayed the Courts to give
the following instructions which were granted

1- That by this Constitution of IllinoisIllinoisVincentVincent - the plaintiff
might lawfully have been hired at the public SalineSaline in IllinoisIllinois,
from year to year until the year 1825 without being removed to
[ an other ]State at the end of every term, when working his
emancepation

2- If the jury are satisfied from the evidence that the owner
of VincentVincent resided in KentuckyKentucky was desirous of withdrawing said
VincentVincent from the IllinoisIllinois SalineSaline and attempted to withdraw
him but was prevented by VincentVincent himself the plaintiff can-

not receive

4- That under the ordiance of Congress of 1787 the that VincentVincent the
plaintiff cannot lawfullywrong be it the IllinoisIllinois SalineSaline, off & on from
1814 to 1826 need not work his emancipation