Randolph v. Alsey
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to St. Louis Circuit Court. 1. The first instruction is broad; because, holding a slave to service at the salt works, near Shawneetown, did not, of course, set him free. — See Constitution of Illinois, article 6, sec. 2. 2. The second instruction is objectionable, for the same reason as the first, and is not made applicable to the facts of the case, which show that Alsey was held in the salt tract, and before 1825, and this instruction precludes the jury from inquiring…
Read the full summary
ERROR to St. Louis Circuit Court. 1. The first instruction is broad; because, holding a slave to service at the salt works, near Shawneetown, did not, of course, set him free. — See Constitution of Illinois, article 6, sec. 2. 2. The second instruction is objectionable, for the same reason as the first, and is not made applicable to the facts of the case, which show that Alsey was held in the salt tract, and before 1825, and this instruction precludes the jury from inquiring whether she was so held there, as to be protected by the second section of the sixth article of the constitution. 3.…
1Opinion of the CourtTompkins, J.
Alsey brought her suit for freedom, in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county, on the ground of residence in the State of Illinois. The defendant, Randolph, pleaded “Not guilty.” The Circuit Court gave judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, for the following reasons, the first four of which may be resolved into this one: That the verdict is against the law and evidence; 5th, That the Circuit Court gave wrong instructions to the jury.
To this last reason, it is sufficient to say, that the defendant did not except to the instructions when they were given, and…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. ReedSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- Houston v. LaneSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
- Empire Building Co. v. HopkinsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- Ewing v. ReillySupreme Court of Missouri · 1863