Sarah, a colored woman v. William Waddingham
View original image: Page  097

If the jury believe from the evidence that the
plaintiff was only temporarily kept in Illinoise, and
merely as the servant of a transient visiter, then
she did not thereby acquire a right to her freedom

2. Dec. 17 If the jury believe from the evidence that J H Martin
took the plaintiff to IllinoisIllinois, on a temporary
visit to his relatives while said plaintiff was
in his service, (according to the terms of the
control of control between said MartinMartin and
Margaret KMargaret K . ProsserProsser (the legal owner of the
plaintiff) and that she was taken to said state
without the knowledge and consent of Mrs.
ProsserProsser , there such fact does not give the
plaintiff a right to her freedom.

3. Dec. 17. If the jury believe from the evidance there
J. H. Martin took the plaintiff to IllinoisIllinois,
without the knowledge and consent of her legal
owner (mrs. MargaretMargaret K KMargaret K . ProsserProsser ) and that
her owner used every means to sand her back
to a slave state, but was presented from so
doing immediately, though fear of endan
garing the life of the infant child of the plain
tiff, which was then dangerous sick, that
this is not such a holding in slavery, under
the law as entitles the plaintiff to her
freedom, and that verdict to be for
the defendant.

4. If the jury believe from the evidance that
plaintiff was carried to the state of IllinoisIllinois
without the knowledge and consentof her legal