Moreland & Barnum v. McDermott
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from St. Louis Circuit Court. 1. The court below ought to have sustained the motion made by the counsel of appellants, on the close of plaintiffs’ case, to exclude so much of Janney’s deposition as relates to the sale ■of the slave Austin.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from St. Louis Circuit Court. 1. The court below ought to have sustained the motion made by the counsel of appellants, on the close of plaintiffs’ case, to exclude so much of Janney’s deposition as relates to the sale ■of the slave Austin. For, the witness Janney not only proved in his deposition that there was a bill of sale of the slave Austin to appellee, which bill of sale was not produced at the trial, but also that he had himself drawn it. 2. The second instruction given to the jury, after the close of the argument to the jury by the counsel of the appellee, was erroneous. For,…
1Opinion of the CourtMcBride, J.
Roger McDermott brought his action of detinue for a slave, against Moreland and Barnum, in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county. The defendants pleaded the general issue, on which the cause went to the jury, who found for the plaintiff. The defendants moved for a new trial, assigning, after the usual reasons, the two following, to-wit: 8th. “Because the counsel of the defendants, and the said defendants, by the instructions of the court given to the jury after the counsel of the plaintiff had closed their argument to the jury, were taken by surprise; and the said defendants were deprived of…
2Cited by1 opinion
- DiPietro v. LavigneSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1954