Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

8 Mo. 656

Randolph v. Alsey

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided July 15, 1844

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1844-07-15

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.

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Bill Of Exceptions”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1844-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1907

4 state decisions

201844185018601870188018901900decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Tompkins, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶2Alsey 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.

¶3To this last reason, it is sufficient to say, that the defendant did not except to the instructions when they were given, and now comes with a bad grace to ask *657a new trial, for the reason that the Court gave instructions, to which, at the time they were given, he did not think proper to object. As to the objection, that the evidence is against the finding of the jury, this Court is not accustomed to weigh the evidence nicely, when it has been left to a jury on instructions that have not been excepted to. It is no exception to instructions, to move for a new trial, where the instructions are then first said to be wrong. Exceptions to the opinion of the court must be taken in the progress of the trial, not after the trial. — 20th section of 4th article of the act to regulate practice at law, p. 464 of the Digest of 1835. See, also, Consaul et al. vs. Liddell, 7 Mo. Rep., 253.

¶4For anything appearing in this record, the motion for a new trial, even, might not have been made within some days after the day of trial. The evidence, however, has been examined; and if this Court were even disposed to invade the province of the jury, no reason is seen why it should be done.

¶5The judgment of the Circuit Court is, then, affirmed.

/8/mo/656 · .json · Public domain