Mary Charlotte, a woman of color v. Gabriel S. Chouteau
View original image: Page  187
[missing figure]
Hoylevs Fisher & wife

action to recover possession
of, and to hold "two negro wenches," Sylvia-JaneJane , and
Ruth-JaneJane , sold by the Defendant, by Notarial Act of
fourth December 1785, which assigned them to one
JacobsJacobs during of their natural lives. The Defendant
made default to appear, and the cause went undefended;
the Court in consequence, by Judgment of the
Eighteenth March 1788, adopting thePlaintiffs' demand,
condemned the Defendants to deliver up the wenches or
pay 50 currency.

Excluded

Povievs. LaGord:- Action to recover back the price
paid by the Plaintiff for John BrownJohn Brown , a negro, sold as a
slave by the Defendant. The record states, that BrownBrown
was not a slave, and the Judgment of the third of July 1788,
in conformity with the records, was in favour of the plaintiff;

Mittleberger vs Langan:- An action, similar to
the one last-mentioned, for the price paid for a negro, named
nNero. The record shews that the negro had been made a
prisoner of war by the Mowhawk Indians, at Ballston in the
state of New YorkYork , from the property of his master Colonel
Gordon, and brought into MontrealMontreal, where the Plaintiff
as the agent of the Mohawks, sold him, that he was confined
in the Provots prison at MontrealMontreal, as a prisoner
of war, and received military rations as such, and that
on his being discharged from the prison, by Brigadier
M. Lean, the commanding Officer, he returned to his former
master, Colonel Gordon, at Ballston, where he had
been seen by the witness. On this Evidence the plaintiff
obtained judgment in his favour on the twentieth of January, 1789.

TurnerTurner & Wife vs.SullivanSullivan : - Action for balance
of price for ManuelManuel , sold as a slave. ManuelManuel had
been sold as a slave for his natural life, and [ had ]

View original image: Page  188
[missing figure]
had
Excluded
had afterwards, on the same day, entered into articles
of servitude with SullivanSullivan , the Defendant, to serve him
for five years, and then be free. The plea was, that
ManuelManuel was not a slave, and that the plaintiffs had
deceitfully represented him as being a slave, and thereby
obtained from the defendant certain payments amounting
to 18, on account of the price; and of which payments
the Defendant by an incidental demand claimed the
repayment, with damages &ca. ManuelManuel himself
intervened in the cause, and claimed his freedom under
the law of the land. In February 1799, the Court dismissed
the action, for want of any title in the plaintiffs to
tranfer any property in ManuelManuel , and, on the incidental
demand, condemned the plaintiffs to repay the 18. to
the defendant.

SmithSmith vs Macfarlane: - Action in trespass
for taking away Catherine Coll, the Plaintiff's wife,
and for retaining her [ cloathes ]. Plea not proved, and
verdict for the plaintiff for 50, currency, Appeal
to the Court of King's Bench, who Ordered, Nineteenth July 1793, a venire de novo, on technical objections
to the regularity and sufficiency of the pleadings, and
from defect of proof, on both sides, at the trial. Upon
the return of the record to the Court below, the Common
Pleas Judgment was rendered on the twenty eighth day of February 1794, after much argument, chiefly upon
technical grounds of informality in the pleadings filed,
and upon the mode of proceeding to proof on the two questions
of marriage and slavery, whether it should be
before the Court according to the procedure of the French Court,
or before a Jury according to English practice. By the Judgment
the Defendant was ordered to replead, and to establish
an issue: the Court expressing its opinion
[ upon ]