Celeste, a woman of color v. Alexander Papin
View original image: Page  025
[missing figure]

him and of this he puts himself up on the county &c
GeyerGeyer for deft
affidavit
for
continuance
And the said cause was thus continued
until the November Term of said Court for the year aforesaid
when the following affidavit was filed in said
cause to wit Celeste vs PapinPapin Suit for freedom
John D. Sarpy being duly sworn an his oath saith
that PeterPeter Manard is a material witness for the said
deft. on the trial of the above cause; that there is no other
witness in attendance upon whose testimony the said
deft can safely rely, to prove the same facts that the said
PeterPeter Manard is expected to prove. Affiant States that
he does not believe the said deft can safely go to trial
without the testimony of said Manard. That he does
not believe the said Manard is absent by the consent
connivance or procurement of this affiant who is
acting as the agent of said PapinPapin , in the above entitled
suit Affiant States that he knows the testimony
of the said Manard to be of importance on behalf
of the defendant on the trial of the above cause. Affiant
States that said Manard is a resident of the Town
of KaskaskiaKaskaskia in the State of IllinoisIllinois and at the request
of this affiant came from KaskaskiaKaskaskia to this City in
order that he might be a witness on behalf of the said
defendant and also on behalf of this affiant who
has a similar suit pending in this Hon Court
Affiant States that said Manard was in this City during
the present Term of this court, but has left the city without
giving sufficient notice to this affiant to take the deposition
of said Manard. Nor does affiant believe that
said deft knew any thing about the intended departure
of said Manard as said deftknows but little
of the said suit and depends entirely on this affiant
to procure the necessary evidence for his defence
Affiant states that as the agent for said deft he would
have taken the deposition of said Manard before

View original image: Page  026
[missing figure]
before the sitting of this Hon Court but that he [ prefered ]
the oral testimony of said Manard and always
believed that he would be able to procure his personal
attendance whenever said cause might be set for
trial, is the reason why the deposition of said Manard
has not been taken. Affiant states that if a continuancel
is granted the deft that the deposition or the personal
attendance of said Manard can be had
at the next Term of Hon Court. Affiant further
States that since the commencement of this present
Term of this Hon Court. he has received inteligence
of other evidence which he is advised and believes
will be important for the defendant on the trial of
the above cause, which evidence affiant believes
was unknown to def and which can only be procured
by going or sending to the Town of VincennesVincennes in
the state of IndianaIndiana. Affiant States that if the deft
is [ compeled ] to go to trial at the present term of this Hon
Court, that manifest injustice will be done him the
said deft. but if a continuiance is granted that he
believes by the next term of this Hon. Court that all the
testimony necessary for the defence may be obtained
Affiant further States that this continuance is
not asked for vexation or delay butfor the purposes
of Justice. John B. SarpyJohn B Sarpy Sworn to and subscribed
in open court 30th Nov 1837John RulandJohn Ruland clerk
Whereupon the said cause was continued until the
July Term of the said Circuit CourtCircuit Court for the year
1838 when on the thirty first day of August in said
year the following further proceeding were had in
said cause to wit Celest & CelestineCelestine vs.AlexanderAlexander Papin
PapinAlexander Papin Suit for freedom. Now at this day come the
parties aforesaid by their respective[ attornies ] and