Aspisa v. Hardage Lane
To the Honorable Luke E Lawless Judge of the eighth Judicial Circuit for the state of Missouri–
The petition of Aspisa a woman of color respectfully represents that she is the daughter of Judy who was born in the state of Virginia about the year 1786, and when about 10 or 11 years old was brought to Louisville, Kentucky and sold to a certain William Sullivan who kept her for a short time as a slave and then sold her to a certain Robert Buntin a resident of the town of Vincennes in the North Western Territory. That the said Bunton took your petitioner's mother to the town of Vincennes in the territory aforesaid about the year 1798, in which place she was owned and continued to be held as a slave by the said Buntin for the space of two years or upwards. That after your petitioner's mother had been held and treated as a slave in the town of Vincennes and territory aforesaid for the length of time set forth above she was sent to Kaskaskia in the said territory, and some short time afterwards sold to a certain William Lecompte of the town of Saint Louis in the province of Upper Louisiana, where she has remained in slavery ever since, and gave birth to your petitioner about thirty two years ago in the town of Saint Louis.
Your petitioner further represents that she is now illegally held in slavery by a certain Hardage Lane of Saint Louis contrary to the provisions of an ordinance passed by the Congress of the United States on the day of July seventeen hundred and eighty seven. Your petitioner therefore prays that she may be permitted to sue as a poor person in order to establish her right to freedom, that counsel be assigned her for that purpose and finally that your honor may grant the usual orders in such cases and as in duty bound will ever pray &c
Aspisa a woman of color
her X mark
State of Missouri
Saint Louis County ss
This day Judy a woman of color personally appeared before the undersigned and made oath that the matter and things in the foregoing petition contained so far as they depend upon her own knowledge are true and those coming from the information of others she believes to be true.
Judy a woman of color
her X mark
Sworn to and subscribed before me the twenty fourth day of June eighteen hundred thirty seven.
James J Purdy
Justice of the Peace
1st It is hereby ordered that Aspisa be permitted to sue as a poor person for the recovery of her freedom and that F W Risque be assigned her as counsel for that purpose.
2nd That the said Aspisa have reasonable liberty to attend her counsel and the court as occasion may require, that she be not removed out of the jurisdiction of the court, and that she be not subject to any severity on account of her application for freedom.
L E Lawless
Judge Ct Ct
To, Hardage Lane
Sir,
Take notice that on Thursday the tenth day of August next between the hours of eight O'clock of the forenoon and of seven O'clock in the afternoon at the dwelling house of Thomas I. Beeler about six miles from Vincennes in the county of Knox in the state of Indiana, depositions of witnesses will be taken to be read as evidence upon the trial of an action of trespass for false imprisonment in forma pauperis for the recovery of freedom now depending in the circuit court of Saint Louis County wherein I am plaintiff and you are defendant. If the depositions should not be finished on that day they will be continued at the same place and between the same hours from day to day until finished when and where you will please attend.
Aspisa a woman of color
by
F. W. Risque her Attorney
St Louis July 27th 1837.
Served this notice by delivering a copy of it to Hardage Lane in the county of St Louis on the 28th day of July 1837
James Brotherton Sheriff
By J. Gordon D Sheriff
Service $–50
Aspisa
vs
Lane
Notice
Court Copy
Depositions of Witnesses produced sworn and examined at the dwelling house of Thomas I Beeler about six miles from Vincennes, in the County of Knox and State of Indiana, before me John Collins a Justice of the Peace in and for the County of Knox afsd in a certain cause now depending in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County in the State of Missouri between Aspisa (a woman of color) Plaintiff and Hardage Lane defendant on the part of the Plaintiff
Robert Buntin Sr of lawful age being produced sworn and examined on the part of the Plaintiff deposeth and saith
Question by Plff Atty - In what year did you come to Vincennes?
Ans - I came to Vincennes in April or May 1793
By same - Have you been the owner of any slaves since your residence in Vincennes?
Ans - I have been the owner of Black people I bought them generally with the intention of liberating them. I bought them all after 1878. The first I bought was William and Old Judy his wife with Sally her oldest child. I bought also afterwards Young Judy from William Sullivan in the year 1799, as appears by his Bill of sale to me, filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County Missouri in the case of Judy in a suit for freedom attached to my deposition therein which should be taken as a part of this.
By same - How long did you own Young Judy?
Ans - I don't know, perhaps two, three or four years.
By same - How did you dispose of Young Judy and to whom did you sell or transfer her?
Ans - I can't be positive but believe I transferred her to Touissant Dubois decd. I am pretty sure of it, but will and state so positively. I think I heard that he afterwards had sold her to Pierre Menard. This was the common repeat.
By same - Did you or did you not sell her as a slave. State if so how you sold her?
Ans - I did not sell her as a slave. I believe I never sold any black or blacks as slaves. I think I sold her with her Indentures for fifteen years. She was bound to me for a certain length of time to repay me the amount I had expended for her, and I sold only her services for the time specified in the Indenture whatever it was, which I can't certainly recollect it has been so long since but believe it was fifteen years from the time she was bound. I generally took an Indenture for this time.
By same - Did you or did you not bring Young Judy to Vincennes from Kentucky ?
Ans - I bought her in Louisville and brought her to Vincennes immediately.
By same - What became of the Indenture of which you speak and where are they now?
Ans - I don't know what became of them nor where they are now. I generally took an Indenture and gave them a copy of it for their own use.
Old Judy and Young Judy did not agree very well and for that reason I sold Young Judy or rather her services. I have no recollection of giving the purchaser any Indenture and rather think that the purchaser from me neither took a Bill of sale, Indenture or any thing else.
R: Buntin
I John Collins a Justice of the Peace do hereby certify that Robert Buntin Sr. the deponent whose place of residence is Knox County in the State of Indiana was by me affirmed to testify the whole truth of his knowledge touching the matter in controversy in the cause aforesaid. That deponent was examined and his examination reduced to writing and subscribed by said deponent in my presence on the 10th day of August eighteen hundred and thirty seven and between the hours of 8 Oclock in the forenoon and of seven Oclock in the afternoon at the house of Thomas I Beeler about six miles from Vincennes in the County of Knox and State of Indiana.
Given and certified this 10th day of August 1837
Jno Collins
Jus Peace (seal)
I John Collins a Justice of the Peace in and for the County of Knox and State of Indiana do certify that in pursuance of the annexed Commission and Notice came before me at the house of Thomas I Beeler about six miles from Vincennes in the County and State last aforesaid Robert Buntin Sr. who was by me there sworn and examined and such examination reduced to writing and subscribed by him in my presence and his said deposition is now herewith returned
Given at the House of Thomas I Beeler aforesaid in the County of Knox and State of Indiana this 10th day of August AD 1837.
Jno Collins
Justice Peace (seal)
State of Indiana
Knox County Ss
I Alexander D Scott Clerk of the Knox Circuit Court to hereby certify that John Collins on the tenth day of August in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty seven was and now is a Justice of the Peace within and for the County of Knox in the State of Indiana duly Commissioned and acting as such and that full faith and credit are due his acts as such
In testimony whereof I A D Scott Clk have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the Seal of Office at Vincennes this 11th day of August Eighteen hundred and thirty Seven.
A. D. Scott Clk
By W. R. McCord DC
Clerks fees for Certificate & Seal $.50
Depositions of witnesses produced sworn and examined at the office of George W. Ewing in Vincennes in the County of Knox and the State of Indiana before me Martin Robinson a Justice of the Peace in and for said County in a certain cause now depending in the Circuit Court for the County of Saint Louis and State of Missouri wherein Aspassia is plaintiff and Hardage Lane is defendant.
David Warford of lawful age being produced sworn and examined on the part of the defendant deposeth and saith, that he is unacquainted with the parties and knows nothing of the matters in controversy between them.
David Warford
I Martin Robinson a Justice of the Peace within and for the County of Knox and State of Indiana do certify, that David Warford the deponent whose place of residence is Vincennes County of Knox and State of Indiana was by me sworn to testify the whole truth of his knowledge touching the matter in controversy in the cause aforesaid. That the deponent was examined and his examinations reduced to writing and subscribed by said deponent in my presence on the twenty first day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand Eight Hundred and thirty Eight between the hours of seven in the forenoon and seven of the afternoon at the office of George W. Ewing in Vincennes in the County of Knox and State of Indiana.
Given and certified the 21 day of July 1838.
Martin Robinson J.P.
Not being able to complete the taking of said depositions by reason of the absence of the witnesses I adjourn the further taking of the same Monday the 23rd day of July (tomorrow being Sunday) there to be continued at the same place and between the same Hours mentioned in the annexed notice.
Martin Robinson JP.
Pursuant to the adjournment above stated on the 23rd day of July in the year Eighteen Hundred and thirty Eight between the hours of seven in the forenoon and seven in the afternoon at the office of George W. Ewing in Vincennes, County of Knox and State of Indiana I continued the taking of said depositions as follows.
Robert Buntin of lawful age being produced sworn and examined on the part of the defendant deposeth and saith.
Question by deft. When did you come to Vincennes?
Answer. About April or May in the year 1793.
Question by deft. At what time did you bring to Vincennes, a colored woman called Young Judy?
Answer. In the fall of the Year 1799.
Question by deft. How long did you keep said colored woman in Vincennes?
Answer. I do not recollect.
Question by deft. How and where did you obtain said colored woman called Judah?
Answer. I obtained her of William Sullivan in Louisville Kentucky in October 1799 and received a Bill of sale for her of that date which was attached to my deposition given at a former examination.
Question by deft. What became of said Judy?
Answer. I think I transferred her to Toussaint Dubois.
Question by deft. Did you purchase her as a slave?
Answer. I did, but it was my intention to set her free, so soon as I was paid for the money advanced for her, for which purpose I took her Indentures for fifteen years as I believe.
Question by deft. What became of those Indentures?
Answer. I do not know certainly, but believe I transferred them to the person I transferred her to.
Question by deft. Was Elihu Stout residing in Vincennes at the time you brought said Judy there?
Answer. I think he was, but I am not certain, my impression is that Elihu Stout came to Vincennes in the year 1796.
Question by deft. Did you ever own any other colored woman called Judy, in Vincennes, except the said Judy?
Answer. I owned one other colored woman in Vincennes and at the same time called Old Judy with her children I set free and are now living in the State of Indiana. Except one called Sarah who left with her own consent, and went away with her husband.
Question by deft. Did you know Mrs. Chun?
Answer. I did. She was brought in by the Indians as a prisoner. It might have been about the time I brought said Judy here, I do not know positively.
Question by deft. How long did you keep said Young Judy in Vincennes after you brought her there?
Answer. I do not know, whether six months or four years, but I think it was not more than four years.
Question by plff. What induces you to believe you took Indentures from Young Judy for fifteen years?
Answer. My intention was when I purchased her and others to set them free after fifteen years service, and I recollect distinctly that I wished to transfer her indentures to the person I sold her services, and I offered to the person to whom I sold her services a Bill of sale stating the time she had to serve which he refused, as I think, stating that he did not want a Bill of Sale.
R: Buntin
I Martin Robinson a Justice of the Peace of Knox County in the State of Indiana do hereby certify that Robert Buntin the deponent whose place of Residence is Knox County in the State of Indiana was by me sworn to testify the whole truth of his knowledge touching the matter in controversy in the cause aforesaid. That deponent was examined and his examination reduced to writing and subscribed by said in my presence on the 23rd day of July. in the year Eighteen Hundred and thirty Eight between the hours of seven in the forenoon and seven in the afternoon at the office of George W. Ewing in Vincennes Knox county and State of Indiana.
Given and certified the 23rd day of July 1838.
Martin Robinson JP.
I Martin Robinson a Justice of the Peace within & for Knox County in the state of Indiana do certify that in pursuance of the annexed commission and notice came before me at the office of George W. Ewing in Vincennes in the County and State last aforesaid David Warford and Robert Buntin who were by me sworn and examined and such examinations reduced to writing and subscribed by them respectively in my presence and their said depositions are now herewith returned.
Given at Vincennes in the County of Knox and State of Indiana this 23rd day of July 1838.
Martin Robinson JP.
State of Indiana
Knox County Ss
I Alexander D Scott Clerk of the Knox Circuit Court do hereby certify that Martin Robinson Esq on the Twenty first and Twenty third days of July in the year of our Lord one Thousand Eight hundred and Thirty Eight was and now is an acting Justice of the Peace within and for the County of Knox in the State of Indiana duly commissioned and acting as such and that full faith and credit are due to his acts as such.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto Subscribed my name and affixed the Seal of Said court at Vincennes this Twenty fourth day of July in the year of our Lord one Thousand eight hundred Thirty Eight.
A. D. Scott Clk
By W. R. McCord DC
1. If the Jury shall be of opinion that the Mother of the plaintiff was in the year 1799 a slave in the State of Kentucky and was brought from there to Vincennes in the N. West territory and domiciled there by her owner they shall find for plaintiff.
2. If the Jury shall be of opinion on the whole of the evidence that the plaintiff's mother was only transiently in the N. West territory and was conducted or sent through this territory by her owner for the purpose of being sold as a slave in Upper Louisiana they shall find for Deft.
If the Jury shall be of opinion that the female ancestor of the plaintiff was a slave in Kentucky on the 22nd Octr 1799, was then sold to Robert Buntin and by said Buntin brought to Vincennes and used by said Buntin at Vincennes or elsewhere in Indiana or Illinois as his slave domiciled with himself they ought to find for plaintiff.
If the Jury shall be of opinion that the evidence before them does not satisfactorily prove that said female ancestor of the plaintiff was used by said Robert Buntin or any other person having the lawful control over her under said Buntin as a domiciled slave in the North West Territory they ought to find for defendant.
If the Jury shall be of opinion that the female ancestor of the plaintiff was not detained or used as a domiciled slave at Vincennes or in any other part of the North West territory but was only carried through the country between Kentucky and Mississippi at St Louis for the purpose of selling her as a slave at St Louis or on the west side of the Mississippi they shall find for Defendant.
The Jury in the case of Aspisa against Lane find for the Plaintiff.
Saint Louis August 29, 1838
Timothy Oakley Jr Foreman
Aspisia
vs
Hardage Lane
suit for freedom
And the said deft comes and moves the Court, to set aside the verdict of the Jury rendered in this cause for the following reasons:
1. The verdict is against evidence.
2. The verdict is against the weight of evidence.
3. The verdict is against law and evidence.
4. The verdict is against law.
5. The Court misdirected the Jury.
6. That illegal testimony was admitted and went to the Jury.
7. That the Deft has discovered new evidence since the trial.
Geyer Hudson & Primm
Atts for Defendant
Aspisa
vs
Hardage Lane
Reasons for new trial
Geyer & al
Atty for deft
Filed August 31st 1838
John Ruland Clerk
Aspisa
vs
Hardage Lane
Decisions in Mo in Cases for Freedom
Merry vs Tiffin & Menard - 1 Mo Rep 725
The principle decided in this case is that every colored person born in the N W Ty after the Ordinance of 1787 is entitled to freedom if born of a mother residing there.
Winny vs Whitesides - 1 Mo Rep 472 - The court uses these words: "This court thinks that the person who takes his slave into said Territory & by the length of his residence there indicates an intention of making that place his residence & that of his slave and thereby induces a Jury to believe that fact does by such residence declare his slave to have become a free man."
Case of Francois Lagrange alias Isidore - 2 Mo Rep 20 - The facts as stated by the court are that in 1816 P. L. Cerre then being owner of Plff sold him to P. Menard for $500. That Menard immediately took him to St Genevieve & from there sent him to Mine La Motte in this state to work. That some time after this Plaintiff went to Kaskaskias where he was put on Board a Keel Boat and after remaining about 2 days, went in said Boat as a working hand to New Orleans. That about the last March 1817 the plaintiff returned in same boat to Kaskaskias where he remained a few days (one witness stated 8 or 9) assisting to unload said Boat, then was sent in said Boat to the Big Swamp in Cape Girardeau County & after remaining there five or six weeks returned in the Boat to Kaskaskias & after two or three days was sent to defendant P. Chouteau Jr where he has been ever since.
The principles decided in this case are 1. The Ordinance of 1787 was intended as a fundamental law for those who may choose to live under it rather than as a penal statute. 2. That in construing the ordinance the court will not be tied down to the particular exceptions contained therein but will construe it according to its spirit.
Any Sort or Residence construed, or permitted by the Legal Owner upon the faith of [unclear] trusts or contracts in order to defeat the ordinance & thereby introduce slavery de facto would doubtless entitle a slave to freedom and should be punished by a forfeiture of title to the property.
The Owner of a slave removing to Illinois and carrying his slave along with him there to remain permanently must intend to introduce, involuntary servitude or slavery against the express Terms of the Ordinance. But the Owner of a slave who is merely passing through the country with him or who may be a resident in Illinois and may choose to employ him mining in Missouri, or as a Sailor or Boat hand upon the rivers or high seas in Boats or [unclear] that occasionally [unclear] & unload their cargoes at some port or place within the State, though he may not do much in extending the fundamental principles of civil & religious liberty, certainly does nothing towards [unclear] slavery on the [unclear] [unclear] of the state.
Slaves carried into Illinois with a view to Residence and staying there long enough to acquire the character of residents, do by such residence became free. Milly vs Smith - 2d Mo Rep 36
Nat vs Ruddle - 3 Mo Rep 400 - In this case the court Instructed the Jury, that if they believed from the evidence that the Master took the slave into Illinois and used him there as a slave or permitted him to be used there as such, they should find for the slave. But that if the slave went into the state on a mere visit or ran away from Missouri to that state he would not thereby be entitled to his freedom.
The master who permits his slave to go to Illinois & there hire himself commits as great an offense as he who takes his slave along with him to reside there. Ralph vs Duncan - 3d Mo Rep 194.
Where a slave stayed in Illinois 30 days during which she was hired out two days & the owner recd pay in Soap held the slave was entitled to Freedom. Julia vs Mr. Kenney 3 Mo Rep 270.
See the case of Rachael vs Walker - 4 Mo Rep 350
The test[?] question where a slave claims freedom on account of Residence in Illinois is whether the master made any unnecessary Delay in Illinois with his slaves it is not whether the slave acquired a Residence nor is it whether the Master became a Domiciliated resident of Illinois nor is it of any consequence that the slave remains voluntarily in Illinois. 592 4 Mo Rep The construction of Ordinance of 1787 & Illinois ban should be the same 4 Mo Rep 592
Risque & Bird for Plff
In the cases of Judy vs Meachum, Andrew vs Sarpy and Aspisa vs Lane in which the facts are the same three intelligent juries have decided in favour of the Plaintiff. This, I contend, is equivalent to three verdicts in the same case. Will the court pay no respect to the opinions of thirty six honest and intelligent men thus solemnly expressed? If the verdict in the case of Aspisa vs Lane, a case so well and clearly made out, should be set aside by the court, the inestimable right of the trial by Jury will become a mere farce, with which the administration of justice is closed. All which is respectfully submitted by
Risque & Bird for Pltf.
Aspisa
vs
Hardage Lane
Brief on Mo for N. Trial
