3 Mo. 194 | Mo. | 1833
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Ralph sued for his freedom in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county, and judgment being given against him in that Court, he comes here to reverse that judgment.
On the trial of the cause it was testified by John Steele, that he had heard John Gordon, the former master of Ralph, say, in the year 1818 or 19, that he had been in the habit of hiring Ralph to work occasionally at the Ohio Saline from the year 1814 or 15, till the time of the conversation aforesaid. Witnesses were called to impeach Steele’s character for veracity, others were called to support it; and William Gordon, a witness on the part of the defendant himself, by his testimony, seemed to support that of Steele. William Gordon was asked by the defendant if he did not live near his brother John Gordon in the years 1815-16-17-18 and 19, and if he knew that his
This testimony and some other not very material to he noticed, being given, the counsel for the defendant moved the Court to give six instructions, the sum and purport of which is as follows :
First. That the Constitution of Illinois takes date and was obligatory from the time it passed unless some other date is provided in the instrument.
Second. That the execuiion of a note by the defendant to the plaintiff as given in. evidence in this case does not operate a manumission of the plaintiff.
Third. That in order to entitle the plaintiff to recover in this suit, it must be proved that the defendant assented to his residence in lilinois.
These instructions were given.
The plaintiff prayed the Court to-instruct the jury that the Constitution of Illinois took effect on 3d December. 1818, when Congress assented to the admission of that State into the Union, and not before that time. This was refused- The plaintiff then prayed a new trial, which was refused- This Court is of opinion that the-instruction asked by the plaintiff should have been given, and that the first instruction asked by the defendant should have been refused.
We have no doubt that for the purposes of self government, the Constitution of Illinois might have been well in, force from the. time of its adoption; bat for the purpose of the present cause, we incline to. limit its effect to th.e time when Congress assented to the admission of the State into the Union.
It cannot be said that the second and third instructions asked by the defendant were improperly given ; but the evidence that the defendant gave his note to the plaintiff is certainly admissible to prove that the defendant treated with him as with a free man. Nor is it necessary to. prove that the assent either of Gordon the former claim-