Rachel v. William Walker
View original image: Page  017
[missing figure]

in this case, namely:

``About the time of the commencement of
``this suit (the writ had just been served I believe)
``the dependant came to my office and said
``that he ought not to have been sued or some
``thing to that effect: that he had bought Ra
``chel from Mr. Klunk & received her & taken
``her to his farm not knowing that there was
``any claim to freedom but that as soon
``as the writ was served, be went to Klunk
``& cancelled the bargain, and Klunk gave
``him back the consideration money: but
``that Klunk had never executed to him
``a bill of sale for her''.

No other testimony was given on either side of the
Court thereupon decided the law governing the case
to be that if said StocktonStockton was an officer of the
army of the United StatesUnited States while he held the plaintiff
in slavery. Stationed at Fort SnellingFort Snelling & Fort Crawford
by the proper authority; & if he employed the plaintiff
during that time only in personal attendance on himself
and family, that such residence of the plaintiff at
those places as has been proved, does not entitle her
to her freedom. To which opinion of the Court, the plain-
tiff by her counsel excepted: & thereupon the court gave
judgement for the defendant

and afterwards & within the time allowed by
law, the plaintiff moved the court to set aside
the verdict finding of the court & grant a new trial for the following
reasons then filed in writing viz..

View original image: Page  018
[missing figure]

1 Because the finding of the issues by the court
is against law & against evidence.

which motion was by the court overruled: to
which opinion of the court overruling said motion
the plaintiff by her counsel excepted, and prays the
Court to sign this her bill of exceptions which
is done.

L E LawlessL E Lawless