Pierre, a man of color v. Gabrial Chouteau
View original image: Page  073
[missing figure]

To Question 12-Was the Kings Proclamation of the seventh of
October 1763 ever repaled?

Answers-It was repealed by the Act of the British
parliament 14 GeorgeGeorge III, chapter 83
, by which a
new system of jurisprudence was introduced
. The administration of the criminal law of EnglandEngland
in criminal matters, and of the law of CanadaCanada in
civil matters, having been thereby established, and
came into operation in May 1775.

To Question 13. Was the question of the legality or nonlegality
of slavery in CanadaCanada ever tested in any of the
courts of justice in CanadaCanada - and, if yes, what
was the result of the test?

Answers - I am informed that a case was detrmined in
the Court of Kings Bench at MontrealMontreal, and that
by the Judgment of that Court of the Eighteenth of February 1800, on RobinRobin aliasRobertRobert , who
had been arrested as a slave for having his master, was brought before the Court on a
writ of
Habeas Corpus, and discharged, on
the ground, that no slavery existed in CanadaCanada.

The Witness was then, by Dr., the
Defendants Counsel, cross-examined, and
answered as follows: -

Cross-question 1 - Were not the Intendants under the French
Government in CanadaCanadainvested with certain
legislative as will as Judicial powers?

Answers - I believe they were-

Cross-question 2 -What were the terms and language of
Mr.Intendant Randols' commission, in so far
as it invests him with legislative powers?

View original image: Page  074
[missing figure]

Answers - I cannot say, not having been able to see or know
the nature of his Commission.

Cross-question 3 - Do not the words âsouslebonplaisir de sa Majestéâ
usedin Mr. Randot's Ordinance of 1709, to which
you , signify
le bon plaisir, and would
not the Ordinance in question be in full force until

lebon plaisir of His Majesty to the contrary would
have been expressed?

Answers - The words âsous le bom plaisir de saMajestéâ used by
Mr.RandotRandot , in this Ordinaner of 1709, an not words
of , or of general use in any of the Ordinances
of the Intendants in CanadaCanada, and are not to be
found in any of the Ordinances of Mr.RandotRandot ,
during his administration as Intendant, as far as
I can discover, except in the particular Ordinance
in question - As the King of France had the
power of control over the Colonial Legislature,
it is reasonable the to suppose, that when reference
was made by it to that , or âbonplaisir,â
the expression of such
bon plaisir necessary
to give validity to the Act or Ordinance that Sub
mitted especially on matters of importance arising
in the Colony. - The establishment of slavery was an
act of high authority in any legislation, and more
especially in such a subordinate Legislatare as
that vested in an Intendant in CanadaCanada, and my
opinion is, that Mr.RandotRandot had no more power
to establish slavery in the Colony, than he had to
establish torture or death for any new offence
occurring there without the consent and authority
of the King.

Cross-question 4 - Did not Mr. the Intendant's Ordinance
of the 1st of September 1736assume the legal
existance of slavery in CanadaCanada under the French
Government?