IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Saturday 10th January 1789, “Present the Hon. John Fraser, H. de Rouville, Esqrs. John Mittleberger, Simon Clarke of Montreal, tavern VS. keeper, examined on trial of this cause Patrick Langan. ) by M. Powell of Counsel for the Plaiatif, after being sworn deposeth and saith ; that he has been

an Jndian Interpreter since the year one thousand seven

hundred and seventy five, but that he never was swort ; that he saw the negro in question, who was sold to the Defendant for a few days at Colonel Claus’s in Montreal. That he does not know whether the Plaintiff bought the said negro of Isaac Hill the Indian chief or any other savage and paid any money for him : an exhibit marked (A) filed by M. Walker of Counsel for the Defendant being shewn to Depont.; he says that the signature thereto ‘ James Clarke,” is in his hand writting ; that he does not know from his own personal knowledge, that the reason assigned in the said exhibit of not taking an oath is a custom among the Indians but that the said chief told him so at the time. Does not know that an Indian ever took an oath. That the said exhibit was signed some time in October last. Has heard that the said negro was in the Provot.for running away from the Plaintiff, but never saw him there. That he never heard that said negro was detained there by order of the Commanding Officer. (Signed on the minutes,) Simon Clarke.

William Wallace of Montreal, shoemaker sworn to give evidence in this cause deposeth and saith : that he knows Colonel Gordon of Bolston of County, in the state of New- York, orin the United States that he knows the negro in question, whose name is Nero that he saw both said persons on the ninth day of October last at said Gordon’s house at Bolston where said negro was Gordon’s servant. That said Gordon told this depont., that said negro was his property and that he came back to his service upon being discharged from the Provot of Montreal by Brigadier McLean his commanding Officer, and that the said negro himself told this depont., that he had drawn provision at Montreal as a prisoner. His deposition being read to him, says it is the truth and declares that he cannot sign his name.

“George Young, keeper of the common gaol of Montreal being sworn to give evidence in this cause deposeth and saith : that he was gaoler of Montreal in the month of June

one thousand seven hundred and eighty one, and that he had ordinary access to all the prisoners in the common gaol and in the military Provot. Knows that M. Levi Willard was the acting Commissary who issued provisions to the military prisoners, that he had seen the said Willard at Montreal about eighteen months ago, but that he has not been resident in the Province these three years. That this depont., was the person at that time who received all servants or slaves committed to the prison upon complaint of their masters to the civil authority. That he never did receive the said negro upon such complaint, so far as he can recollect, or even had him in his custody. (Signed on the minutes,) Geo. Young.

The evidence being closed it is ordered that the cause be put in deliberation.

Tuesday 20th January 1789.

Present the same.

The Court having considered the pleadings, evidence and exhibits filed in this cause, and having fully heard the parties by their counsel it is ordered and adjudged that the Plaintiff do recover of the Defendant the sum of sixty pounds current money, being the principal sum paid by him to the Defendant for the negro mentioned in his declaration, with interest on the said sum from the fourth day of July last until actual payment and costs of suit.

District de } COUR DES PLAIDOYERS COMMUNS.

Montréal. Terme Supérieur.

Jeudy le 3e Juillet 1788.

Les Honorables JEAN FRASER,

Ecuiers

Herrez pe RouviLe, et dé L Juges présens.

Enwarp SOUTHOUSE,

J. Poirée, Entre Joseph Poirée comparant par M.

& Walker, son avocat Demandeur, d’une part, et J. Lagord. ÿ Jean Lagord, comparant, par Me. Ross, avocat Deffendeur d’autre part. Après que M. Walker pour le Demandeur a conclu par sa déclaration tendante pour les raisons y contenues aux fins de condamnation contre le

Là LÉ AA PRIE A à

Deffendeur au payement de la somme de quarante septlivres dix chelins pour le prix d’un nègre libre que le deffendeur lui a vendu et pour dômages et frais qui ont résulté de cette vente, avec intérêt et dépens. Me. Ross pour le deffendeur a présenté un écrit de deffenses, par lequel il conclut pour les raisons y contenues à ce que le demandeur soit renvoyé de l’action avec dépens, d’autant que dans la vente du nègre en question il ne lui a données d’autre assurance que ce qui est exprimé en l’acte du 7 septembre dernier, que d’ailleurs les Commissaires n’avaient aucun droit, pouvoir n’y authorité de prendre connaissance, n’y déterminer aucuns droits de propriété, et que d’autant que le dit Lagord n’était point partie en la dite sentence qu’ils ont rendue, il ne peut en souffrir ni être affecté ; a quoy Me Walker a repliqué par son écrit que nonobstant toutes les raisons données par le Deffendeur, il doit être tenu à lui rembourser l’argent qui Jui a payé pour le dit negre, ensemble les frais et dommages qu’il a souffert par cette vente frauduleuse laquel!e il n’avait aucun droit de faire pourquoy persiste en ses conclusions. Parties ouies vû les pieces produites par les parties et leurs debas respectifs et tout considéré a Cour condamne le Deffendeur a payer au Demandeur la somme de trente sept livres dix chelins du eours actuel pour le prix du dit negre et renvoye le Demandeur au chef des domages, aux interets de la dite somme à compter du vingt novembre dernier jour do la demande jusques à l’actuel payment et aux dépens taxé a

Mandons &c.