DEPOSITIONS of witnesses, produced, sworn, and examined, at the dwelling house of , Number No . 90 Myrtle StreetMyrtle Street in the City and County of ; , before me, , Law Commissioner for the said County, in a certain cause now pending in the Circuit CourtSaint Louis Circuit Court in the , between Dred ScottDred Scott, plaintiff, and Irene EmersonIrene Emerson, defendant, on the part of the Plaintiff C---- of the , of lawful age, being duly sworn and examined on the part of the Plaintiff deposeth and saith:---

I know Dred ScottDred Scott, Plaintiff in the above case. During the years1837 and 1838, I knew him as a Slave. at , at the mouth of . on the west side of the . within the Territorial limits of the . Said ScottScott at this time was held as a slave by a Doctor EmersonEmerson, a Surgeon in the United StatesUnited States Army, who was then posted at . I knew the Plaintiff to be held for only one year by Said EmersonEmerson, as a Slave. During that time Said EmersonEmerson exercised control over, and used Plaintiff entirely as a Slave. Since that time I have only seen Plaintiff occasionally. I know HarrietHarriet, the wife of Plaintiff Plaint Said Dred ScottDred Scott. X I first knew her at . She too was a Slave of Doctor EmersonEmerson at the Same time that I knew DredDred. there. This woman, in the year 1837 was hired to me as a servant by Doctor EmersonEmerson, and was in my family some two or three months. I knew Said woman for the same length of time that I did ^ Dred. During that whole time She was held in Slavery by Doctor EmersonEmerson. When I went to to live, I found Doctor EmersonEmerson posted there. How long he had been there I do not know. Doctor EmersonEmerson. left , in the fall of 1837, but left these slaves there. hire out. They remained there until April 1838, when they left for the South, - for . I think. During the whole time that I knew them at they were held in Slavery by Doctor EmersonEmerson, or by persons to whom they were hired by him. They were universally known there to be Doctor Emersons Slaves. At the time that I was at my name was ThompsonThompson. I was then the wife of , X a LieutenantLieutenant in the army of the . The Plaintiffs in these cases are now in St LouisSt. Louis; and I have been informed and believe, are at W. SamuelSamuel Russell’s. I went to in the latter part of May, or first of June, 1837. and left in May, 1838.

I, Jno. H. Watson, "The Law Commissioner of St LouisSaint Louis County", in the , do hereby certify that , the deponent, whose place of residence is the , in the , was by me Sworn to testify the whole truth of her knowledge, touching the matter in [illegible] in the Cause aforesaid; that deponent was examin [ed] , and her examination reduced to writing by me, and Inscribed by Said deponent in my presence, on the tenth day of May A.D. 1847, between the hours of 8 o’clock in the forenoon and 6 o’clock in the afternoon, at the residence of , number No. 90 Myrtle StreetMyrtle Street, in the , in the .

In testimony whereof I have hereunto Inscribed my name and affixed my official seal, on this tenth day of May, A.D. 1847.

Depositions of witnesses, produced, sworn, and examined at the office of Charles D. Drake, in the , & , before me, the undersigned, , a justice of the peace within & for the aforesaid, in two certain causes now pending in the Circuit CourtCircuit Court, within & for the said , , in one of which causes Dred ScottDred Scott is plaintiff and Irene EmersonIrene Emerson is defendant, and in the other of said causes HarrietHarriet (of color) is plaintiff & the said Irene EmersonIrene Emerson is defendant, on the part of the plaintiffs.

c x of lawful age, being produced, sworn & examined on the part of the plaintiffs, deposes & says:— I know the negro man named DredDred, who is the plaintiff in this suit. I first knew DredDred some time in the year 1834 , at , Illino in the . He was then a servant belonging to Doctor EmersonEmerson, who was there an Assistant Surgeon in the Army of the United StatesUnited States, and was stationed at . He was held in service there by Doctor EmersonEmerson as a slave from the time I first knew him, until April or May 1836. At that time, was evacu ^ ated by the troops, to which was attached, and the troops with Doctor EmersonEmerson went from to , which is situated at the junction of the with the , on the west side of the MississippiMississippi, within the Territorial limits of the and North of the . From the time the troops arrived at until the 7th day of July 1837. I knew DredDred to be held by Doctor EmersonEmerson, as a slave, at . At the last mentioned date I left that place. During all the time I knew DredDred at

and , he was claimed by Doctor EmersonEmerson as a slave and used by him as such. During the time I have mentioned, I was in the Army of the United StatesUnited States, and attached to the same troops, to which Doctor EmersonEmerson was attached.

I am now Second LieutenantLieutenant in ’s Company of Volunteers known as the "MissouriMissouri Guards," raised for service in , and expect, probably some time next week the Company will leave for its destination. Further he saith not.

) [illegible abbreviation] I. , a Justice of the Peace within and for the County aforesaid, do hereby certify that , the above named deponent was by me sworn to testify the whole truth of his knowledge, touching the matter in controversy in the causes aforesaid; And that his deposition was reduced to writing and subscribed by him in my presence, on the thirteenth day of May, 1847, between the hours of eight o’clock in the forenoon And Six o’clock in the afternoon, at the Office of Charles D. Drake in the , in the and .

To . U.S.A.

Witness, , Clerk of our said Court, with the seal thereof hereto affixed, at office, in the City of St LouisCity of St. Louis, this 24th — day of June in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hunccrd and forty- seven

Executed June 30th 1847 by reading Thos. O Flaherty ThomasThos. Gray & (M H Clark & not found

Witness, , Clerk of our said Court, with the seal thereof hereto affixed, at office, in the City of St LouisCity of St. Louis, this 26 — day of June in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hunccrd and forty- 7

Witness, , Clerk of our said Court, with the seal thereof hereto affixed, at office, in the City of St LouisCity of St. Louis, this 30th — day of June ^ in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hunccrd and forty- seven

Now at this day comes the plaintiffs in the above causes and moves the Court to set aside the verdict [rendered] in their cause for the following reasons

Now at this day comes the said plaintiffs & [illegible] additional reasons for moves the Court to set aside the verdict rendered herein & grant a new trials in the above entitled Causes for the for the follow reason, in addition to the reasons mentioned in the motion here before filed to wit; Because the said plaintiffs were suprised by the ^ testimony evidence of the witness RussellRussell who testified in ther Cause.

Dred ScottDred Scott, the plaintiff in this Cause in Support of his motion for a new trial [,] States upon oath. That he was Surprised in the testimony of the witness , by whom he expected to move that he, this affiant, was hired as a Salon by Said RussellRussell from the defendant, previous to the Commencement of this Suit, & that Said RussellRussell Paid to Said defendant money for the hire of this affiant as a X Slave, and that he did not know previous to, or as [illegible] the trial of Said Cause that he could ^prove X Said facts, or Could prove that he was claimed as a Slave or held in Slavery by Said defendant, by any other person than Said RussellRussell, and therefore relied solely upon the testimony of Said RussellRussell to prove Such facts as now necessary to maintain Said Suit of which Said defendant, is the person holding this affiant in Slavery. X This affiant in support of this affidavit makes an exhibit of a certain letter adccrssed to Said RussellRussell by J.R. Lackland one of the Counsel of this affiant & the answer of Said RussellRussell to the Said letter —from which it will appear, that previous to Said trial Said RussellRussell informed Said Lackland that he Said RussellRussell hired this affiant in March 1846.

from the defendant & that he Said RussellRussell Paid the Said hire of this affiant to Said defendant.

This affiant further states that relying solely upon the testimony of Said RussellRussell to prove these facts & knowing no other person by whom he could prove the same facts, or other facts tending to the Same [ends] , he went into trial. When to his Surprise Said RussellRussell testifyed in effect that he did not hire this affiant from X Said defendant, nor did he pay Said hire to Said defendant, for that his Knowledge of such facts was solely derived from the information of his Wife. This affiant thus taken by surprise in the testimony of Said RussellRussell[,] was unable to establish Said facts to the Satisfaction of the Jury, for which reason, he supposes, a verdict was rendered against him.

This affiant states that previous to said trial he had no knowledge that the Wife of Said RussellRussell had any knowledge that this affiant was held in Slavery by Said defendant but that if a new trial is granted to him he expects to prove by the testimony of the Wife of Said RussellRussell that Said defendant, previous to the Commencement of Said Suit hired this affiant to the Wife of Said RussellRussell,

acting as the agent of her Said husband, and that her acts in this ocassion were ratifyed & approved by her Said husband & that Said defendant Claimed this affiant as her Slave.

This affiant avers that previous to Said trial he had no knowledge that the Wife of Said RussellRussell, or any other person ^ than Said RussellRussell had any knowledge that this affiant was held in Slavery by Said defendant.

This affiant avers that the facts [illegible] in his petition to sue for his freedom are true. That he was & is a free man & was at the time of the Commencement of this Suit held in Slavery by Said defendant [.] That the verdict against this affiant is unjust & oppressive tending to the [...] tion of rights to which he is entitled by the laws of the land. And that upon a new X trial he will be able to establish his right to freedom & to prove that he was & is unjustly & unlawfully held in Slavery by Said defendant.

The plaintiff Elects to take a new Trial

Now at this day come again they parties aforesaid by their respective attornies, and the Court here being now sufficiently advised of and concerning the premises, do consider and adjudge that the judgmen said plaintiff take nothing by her writ of error sued out in the ab [ove entit] led cause— but that the said writ be dismissed, and [that] the said go thereof without day and recover of the said plaintiff his costs an [d char] ges herein expended and have thereof execution.

MissouriState of Missouri

I, Clerk of the Supreme CourtSupreme Court of the MissouriState of Missouri, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full and complete transcript of the judgment of said Supreme CourtSupreme Court, rendered at its March Term 1848, in the Case of Irene EmersonIrene Emerson Plaintiff in error, and Dred ScottDred Scott (of Color) defendant in error, —from t [he] Louis Circuit CourtCircuit Court.

In testimony whereof I hereunto set out my hand and affix the seal of said Court, at office, in the City of JeffersonCity of Jefferson, the 24th of July anno domini AD 1848.

H.S. Boon

This is an action to try the right of HarrietHarriet to her freedom. There was a verdict for the defendant. Afterwards, a motion for a new trial was made and sustained. An exception was taken by the defendant to the granting of the motion, which being overruled she has brought the cause here by writ of error.

From the foregoing statement of facts, it is clear, that there is no final judgment, upon which a writ of error can only lie. The cause is still pending in the court below. Moreover, the case of Helm v. Bassett, 9 Mo. R. 52, settles the point that the granting of a new trial cannot be assigned for error. a The other Judges concurring, the writ will be dismissed.

The other Judges concurring, the writ will be dismissed.

This case is in all respects similar to that of Emmerson v. HarrietHarriet, decided at this term, and a similar disposition is made of it.

Now at this day come again they parties aforesaid by their respective attornies, and the Court here being now sufficiently advised of and concerning the premises, do consider and adjudge that the said plaintiff take nothing by her writ of error sued out in the above entitled cause — but that the said writ be dismissed, and that the said go thereof without day and recover of the said plaintiff his costs and charges herein expended and have thereof execution.

MissouriState of Missouri

I, Clerk of the Supreme CourtSupreme Court of the MissouriState of Missouri, do certify that the foregoing is a full and complete transcript of the judgment of said Supreme CourtSupreme Court, rendered at its March Term 1848, in the case of Irene EmersonIrene Emerson Plaintiff in error, and HarrietHarriet (Colored woman) defendant in error, from the Louis Circuit CourtCircuit Court.

In testimony whereof I hereunto set out my hand and affix the seal of said Court, at office, in the City of JeffersonCity of Jefferson, the 24th of July anno domini AD 1848.

H.S. Boon