Bill of Exceptions
In the St. Louis Circuit Court
Harriet a woman of color )
vs. )
Irene Emmerson )

Be it remembered that on the trial of this cause the plaintiff to maintain the issue on her part and to establish her right to freedom read in evidence to the Jury without objection the depositions of Miles H Clark and Catharine A Anderson, and which depositions are in the words X and figures following to wit (here insert them) and further to maintain the issue and to establish the right to freedom called as a witness S. Russell who being duly sworn upon his oath testified as follows that Dred Scott and his wife Harriet (the plaintiff in this suit) with their children were hired by him from Mrs Emmerson the wife of Dr Emerson, that he had paid the hire of these negroes to Col. Sandford the father of Mrs Emmerson.

On Cross Examination he stated that he did not hire the said negroes himself but that they had been hired by his wife or that his wife had made an arrangement with Mrs Emmerson for them, that in fact all that he knew about it was from his wife other than he had paid the hire to Col. Sandford, that he in fact knew nothing of the hiring, but what he had learned from his wife, that he paid the money to Col. Sandford, and supposed that it was for Mrs Emmerson, but that he did not know. XHenry J Blow a witness on part of plaintiff testified that plaintiff was formerly owned by the father of witness who sold him to Doct. Emmerson

The defendant offered no evidence, and there was no other evidence offered to the Jury who thereupon found a verdict for the defendant. And afterwards on the 30th day of June in the year 1847 the plaintiff by her Attorney filed a motion accompanied with reasons to set aside the verdict of the Jury in the cause, and that a new trial be granted her and which motion and reasons are in the words and figures following to wit (here set X ^ out the motion etc.) and that on the 1st day of July thereafter the plaintiff by her Attorney by leave of the Court filed an additional reason in support of his motion for a new trial, and which additional reason is in the words and figures following to wit (here set out the additional reason) and that on the twenty fourth day of July following there was filed an affidavit in said cause purporting X to be made by Dred Scott the plaintiff in a suit against the same defendant, pending in said court, and which was also considered as on file in the present cause in support of the motion for a new trial (here set out the affidavit) and that on the following and succeeding term of the Court to wit at the November Term of the year 1847 on the [blank space] day of November in said last mentioned year the said motion came on to be heard and upon argument of Counsel was by the Court adjudged to be sustained & a new trial was granted to said plaintiff X in the cause to which decision of the Court sustaining said motion and granting a new trial in the cause the defendant by her Counsel

excepted and now excepts and to preserve the evidence of which the Counsel for the defendant asks that this his bill of Exceptions may be signed sealed & made a part of the Record all which is done accordingly

A. Hamilton
Judge 8d