all the evidence, is continued in the depositionsexcept,
the testimony of JohnJohn Warfield WarfieldJohn Warfield , he stated
that, to his knowledge, the plaintiff wasemployed,
by James DuncanJames Duncan , brother of deft in IllinoisIllinois near
GalenaGalena, at Mining, during the years 1828 & 1829

The reasons ruled in favor for a newtrial, are as stated

1 Our statuterequiresthat plaintiff shall in a suit
for freedom allege ``that before & at the time
of the committing the grievance in declaration
mentioned Dft held & detained & still holds & -
detaoms plaintiff in slavery'' & the lawrequires to
maintain this action that then allegations shall be
fully proved and that in this case they were
not proved.

1 Insist, that those allegations weresufficiently from &,
from the facts, that Deft. in KentuckyKentuckyactually held &
claimed plaintiff as a slave - that he hired him
as his slave to JesseJesse Duncan DuncanJesse Duncan for the purpose of having
him taken & put to labour in IllinoisIllinois - that he
defended this said by pleading that plaintiff was a
slave - that during this suit by his motion which
is spread upon the record the plaintiff was
by aware of this courtdelivered to defendant
an the presumption, that he was Dft slave

The truedoctrine in MissouriMissouri, is that black persons
in this state are presumed to be slaves untill the
contrary appears. he who has oneowned &
possessed a slave is still in presumption of law
owned & possessed of him unless the contrary
isproved on the supposedownerdisclaimed
he who claims a Black person in Mo.
as his slave, of such Black has not about him the
record evidence of his freedom, in the eve of the
lawholds him in slavery - because he is presumed
to be a slave & if he is claimed as such is liable to
all the disabilities of slave Laws of Mo.
and Because the statutedeclares that suits for freedom
``shall be broughtagainst the person holding the
petitioner in slavery or the one claiming him or her as a
slave state suits freedom law Mo. 405

2 the insist that it is not necessary to prove that at the
time of the commencement of the suitDeftactually
had the plaintiff by the throat of the head in actualpossession

If this doctrinewent to prevail no man who
is free a slave de facto could evermention
a suit for freedom and the statute

Because no man who has not the receipt or property
in a thing can have constrictionspossession of this
thing - therefore if a wrongfully held him as a slave
the minute he escapesfrom the custody of a
and goesbefore a Judge
to sue for freedom the judge may tellhim
and may not let you see - Because if you are
a free man you can not in lawbe in
possession of the man who claims you and if
you are not so in possession you could not
maintain your suit if you shouldsueyou
mustwait untill you are put in &
if your will bring your before me
& you bring your suit you cando
according to the Statute & not otherwise

but the statute was made to protect those who
are unable to protectthemselves - the allegations
required in the Declaration were probably intended
vs a farm for imprisonmentwho are
must assign and that the court maybe
in the declaration try in the plaintiffs
of complaint & the Defendants claim and
that defendant maybe Simply plea the general
issueamid that being drawn to his plea of satisfaction
the statute is nearly cumulative & wasneverintended
to make it necessary to produce more or other
to maintain an action under the
statute than at theLaw -
the Statute declares that in trespass freedom the Deff
shall declare in trespassassault - and
that the Jury if theyfound for the plaintiff
shall assess Damages as in other cases