Louis Scott, a man of colour v. William Burd
View original image: Page  091
[missing figure]

On part of Deft
1. That the plaintiff is not entitled to his freedom
in consequence of being sent to IllinoisIllinois to do
work & or of remaining there to do the same, if the jury believes from the evidence that he was
thus sent & remained there,
without the knowledge,
consent or connivance of the defendant.
(Given)

2 That the plaintiff is not entitled to his freedom
in consequence of his having been sent to the
State of IllinoisIllinois to do work there by a
member of the firm to which defendant
belonged, and of his remaining there to do it, provided the jury believe from the evidence that he was so sent & remained,
entirely without the knowledge consent
or connivance of the defendant.
(Given)

3 If the jury believes from the evidence that defendant
was owner of the plaintiff & hired him for
a year to a firm transacting business in the State of MissouriMissouri of which he the defendant
was member, and that said plaintiff was sent
to the State of IllinoisIllinois by a member of that firm after the deft
to do work there & remained there to do it and
that he was there sent & remained, without
the knowledge, consent or connivance of the
said defendant, they are bound to find for
the defendant.
(Given)