Amy v. Ramsey

• Decision Date: 31 May 1837
• Citation: 4 Mo. 505
• Parties: AMY, A WOMAN OF COLOR, v. JONATHAN RAMSEY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

4 Mo. 505

AMY, A WOMAN OF COLOR,

v.JONATHAN RAMSEY.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

May Term, 1837.

Amy, the plaintiff in error, brought an action of assault, &c., against Jonathan Ramsey in the Circuit Court of Callaway county for her freedom. The defendant plead that the plaintiff was his slave, issue was joined to this plea. The parties went to trial, and the defendant proved the plaintiff was born the slave of one Josiah Ramsey more than twenty years before the trial, in the State of Kentucky, and that she had continued in the possession of said Ramsey till the time of his death, which took place in September, 1834; that Josiah Ramsey moved from Kentucky to Missouri, and resided in the same since the year 1816 or 1817. The defendant then offered to give in evidence a bill of sale under the hand and seal of the said Josiah to the said Jonathan the defendant, bearing date the 27th day of August, 1809, expressing the consideration of thirteen hundred and twenty-three dollars, and conveying the plaintiff, and four others, to the said Jonathan. The bill of sale reserved the uses of the slaves to said Josiah for his life. The bill of sale purports to be witnessed by Thomas Patterson, who was proved to be dead. The defendant proved the hand-writing of Patterson, and also the hand-writing of Ramsey, and then offered to read the deed to the court sitting as a jury; to this the plaintiff objected, but the court overruled the objection; permitted the paper to be read, and the plaintiff excepted. On the back of the paper there was a certificate of one Patterson, certifying without official seal, that the deed had been acknowledged in open court in Livingston county, Kentucky, and was recorded. There was some other testimony as to the good character of Patterson, the witness, &c.

The plaintiff then gave in evidence, the deposition of one Samuel Lawrence, which went to prove that in 1830, the defendant, Jonathan, told him that he had no claim to the plaintiff, and also informed witness that the old man could not dispose of the negroes, as he had set them free in Kentucky. The plaintiff also proved that the bill of sale was not in the hand-writing of Josiah Ramsey. The plaintiff then proved by Jesse Patterson, the clerk in Kentucky, who states that in 1832, he was made clerk; when he entered on the duties of the office he found the bill of sale among hundreds of old papers not recorded by his predecessor, and that he recorded it, and that there was no order in the record book of the acknowledgment, and that when the order was made, one Parmer was clerk, and one Davis deputy, and that the order was in the hand-writing of said Davis. The plaintiff then offered to prove by some witness who had examined the original order, that the word sale in the order, had not been origlnally written so, but had been rubbed out. The court refused to hear this evidence. The plaintiff then offered to give in evidence a deed of manumission, from Josiah Ramsey to her and others, duly proved as the law directs, and recorded, &c., the date of which deed is the 3rd day of September, 1834. The defendant objected to this deed being given in evidence, and the defendant stated in open court, that if defendant did not prove the plaintiff was his slave, then she was entitled to a verdict. The court rejected the deed. The defendant then gave in evidence a letter addressed to him by the witness, Lawrence, without a name, but proved to be Lawrence's writing, in which he stated the negroes had offered him $100 not to go away, but to give testimony for them; but that if Ramsey would give the $100, witness would go away, and not give evidence. The defendant also proved by one Royston, that Josiah had admitted in his presence in 1830, or thereabout, that the slaves belonged to defendant after his Josiah's death; also proof was given of the good character of Royston. There was some other evidence given to show that the subject of Josiah wishing to emancipate the slaves was mentioned to defendant, and that he said nothing about his claim.

The plaintiff then asked the court for several instructions, some were given and some were not given. Those refused are as follows; 1st. That the bill of sale is void against the plaintiff. 2nd. That if the jury, even if they believe the bill of sale was once made by Josiah Ramsey, yet if they believe the same was cancelled, they must find for the plaintiff. 3rd. That if they find the bill of sale is more than twenty years old, and Josiah Ramsey has ever since, and before its date, been in the absolute possession of the plaintiff as his slave, then they must find for the plaintiff. 4th. If they believe the said Josiah had the adverse possession of the plaintiff for more than five years before he set her free, then they must find for the plaintiff. 5th. If they believe from the evidence that Jonathan Ramsey admitted at several times that he claimed no interest in the slaves, the same is evidence to show the bill of sale had been cancelled. There were several other instructions refused, but it is believed all the balance are embraced in those already mentioned.

The defendant asked and obtained the following instructions: 1st. If the jury believe from the evidence that the slave was Jonathan Ramsey's by the purchase, then she is still his, unless he has sold or disposed of his interest. 2nd. There is no evidence of any sale or transfer of the slave by Jonathan. 3rd. That the defendant not asserting his title is no evidence that he had none, or had released it. 4th. That if the jury find, on the death of Josiah Ramsey, the defendant became entitled to the plaintiff as his slave, they must find a verdict for defendant. 5th. That the fact that defendant did not disclose his title to Joshua Ferguson, to William Scott, or to S. Lawrence, does not of itself divest him of it. 6th. That no inference is to be drawn in favor of plaintiff from the character of the defendant, whether good or bad.

1st. It is assigned for error that the court refused the above instructions asked by the plaintiff, and gave those asked by the defendant. 2d. It is assigned, for error, that the court refused a new trial, and 3d. Also the court erred in permitting the defendant's bill of sale to go in evidence. 4th. The court erred in refusing to permit the plaintiff to prove the order admitting the bill of sale to record in Kentucky had been altered and erased. 5th. That the court erred in refusing to permit the plaintiff to read in evidence her deed of emancipation. These five points contain all the matter involved in the case.

J. WILSON, for Plaintiff in Error. 1st. That the court erred in permitting the bill of sale from Josiah Ramsey to Jonathan Ramsey to be read in evidence. 2nd. That the court erred in refusing to permit the plaintiff to prove the order in Kentucky had been altered and erased. 3rd. That the court erred in refusing to permit the plaintiff to give in evidence the deed of emancipation, the plaintiff and others. 4th. The court erred in giving the 1st, 3d, 5th, 10th, 14th and 15th instructions asked by defendant. 5th. The court erred in refusing a new trial.

LEONARD, for Defendant. First point: The deed of August, 1807, together with the proof of its execution, was properly admitted as evidence. Second point: The evidence offered by the plaintiff to prove erasures in the record of the Livingston County Court was properly excluded. Third point: The deed of emancipation from Josiah Ramsey, senior, was irrelevant to the matter in issue between the parties, and rightly excluded. Fourth point: The jury were correctly instructed as to the law of the case.

MCGIRK, J.

The...