Maria v. Atterberry
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from Howard. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. The .plaintiff insists that the judgment was erroneous, and should be reversed, for the following reasons : 1. The circuit court erred in excluding from the jury, the record offered in evidence by the plaintiff, from Hart county court, in the State of Kentucky.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Howard. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. The .plaintiff insists that the judgment was erroneous, and should be reversed, for the following reasons : 1. The circuit court erred in excluding from the jury, the record offered in evidence by the plaintiff, from Hart county court, in the State of Kentucky. See Laws of U. S. May 26, 1790, ch. 11; Ferguson vs. Hartwood, 7 Cranch 408. The only issue under the pleadings presented on the record was the assault and battery, and under the plea of not guilty, court erred in rejecting said record. See Carney vs. Hampton, 3 Monroe’s R. 228; Talbot vs.…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.
This was a suit for freedom brought by Maria, against Atterberry. Maria took a non suit, and after an unsuccessful motion to set aside, and for a new trial, has brought the ease here by appeal.
In support of her right to freedom, Maria offered in evidence a transcript from the record of the county court of Hart county, in the State of Kentucky, authenticated in pursuance of the act of Congress of the 27th April, 1804. The act of liberation in the record, is in these words : “Thomas Atterberry, sen’r. of Hart county, by Richard Atterberry, his attorney in fact and agent — a deed of emancipation…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Elliott v. RayIndiana Supreme Court · 1826
- Strode v. ChurchillCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1822