Wilson v. Melvin II: "They Must Have Been Very Incredulous Indeed"

Justice George Tompkins, whom we have encountered before, wrote the decision for the unanimous Supreme Court of Missouri. After describing the facts, Justice Tompkins discussed the court's earlier decisions, focusing particularly on Julia v. McKinney. I have reviewed Julia at length in earlier posts. Based on his review, Justice Tomkins reaffirmed the general rule that a slave did not become free merely by "traveling" through a free state or territory with his master. However, he gave traveling a restrictive definition. It required continual movement with only "necessary" stops:

"[Traveling] should last so long as might be necessary according to the common modes of traveling, to accomplish [the slaveholder's] journey through the State. If accident should happen to the emigrant, which, in ordinary cases, would make it reasonable and prudent to suspend his journey a short time, we think he might do so without incurring a forfeiture [i.e., loss of his slave], if he resumes his journey as soon as he safely could. Something more than mere convenience, or ease of the emigrant, ought to intervene to save him from a forfeiture. Something of the nature of necessity should exist before he would, or ought, to be exempted from the forfeiture."

So measured, Justice Tompkins held, the jury instructions were "wrong." In effect, Justice Tompkins held that it was irrelevant whether Melvin had used Wilson as a slave in Illinois. It was also irrelevant that Melvin had kept his wagon loaded. The sole question was whether Melvin "made any unnecessary delay in Illinois."

Justice Tompkins's observations about the case make clear that his decision was based on no mere technicality. He was angry that the trial judge had given "misleading" instructions, and he did not believe that any reasonable jury could rule against Wilson. He came close to saying in so many words that he believed that Melvin's defense -- that he had not intended to reside in Illinois -- was a lie that no one could believe:

"[B]ut it being proved that he [Melvin] stayed there [in Illinois] for three or four weeks before he went to St. Louis, and that, in a very short time, he returned and made a crop of corn, and remained in the State to gather and sell it. If they [the jury] believed that the defendant did this, without any intention of domiciliating himself therein, they must have been very incredulous indeed. So that even admitting that it was in evidence, that the defendant had, when he left home, meditated a journey through Illinois to Missouri, it appears that the jury ought, in conformity with this instruction, to have found for the plaintiff. Because, then, all the instructions given by the court appear to me to be calculated to mislead a jury."

The court therefore reversed the judgment against Wilson and remanded for a new trial "to be proceeded in conformably [sic] to this opinion."

Wilson v. Melvin I: A Careful Slaveowner

Before I get to Scott v. Emerson (1852), however, there are a few more cases I want to look at briefly.

Wilson v. Melvin, 4 Mo. 592, 1837 WL 2327 (1837), is probably the high-water mark for slave freedom suits in Missouri. As usual, let's start with the facts.

In March 1834, the defendant, Daniel Melvin, moved from Tennessee to St. Clair County, Illinois, where his son already lived. Melvin brought with him two slaves, one of whom was the plaintiff, Daniel Wilson. (Interestingly, this is the first slave freedom case I have discussed in which the caption identifies the slave by his last name rather than his first.)

Melvin moved with the apparent intention of residing in Illinois: he came with a wagon and team. However, before he left or when he arrived, he was warned that, if his slaves established residence in Illinois, the slaves would obtain their freedom. He therefore parked the wagon on his son's property and did not unload it. "He appears to have been impressed with the belief that unloading his wagon would have been evidence that he had a fixed place of abode." He rented land nearby "and made a crop of corn on rented ground."

Melvin also apparently took steps to avoid using his slaves as slaves while in Illinois. During this period, "the slaves did little except to feed the horses." It also seems that Wilson, the slave, hired himself out on odd jobs and probably gave most of his pay to Melvin, but there was no evidence that Melvin had arranged this work or even encouraged it.

After a month or so, Melvin took his two slaves to St. Louis, where he sold them. Wilson then brought this suit in the state Circuit Court of St. Louis County.

At trial, the Circuit Court gave the jury quite liberal instructions. Among other things, the court instructed that "[i]f they shall be of the opinion that the defendant [Melvin], being a domiciliated resident of the State of Illinois, used the plaintiff as his slave therein, they shall find for the plaintiff [Wilson]." The court gave a similar instruction concerning hiring out. Presumably because there was no clear evidence that Melvin had actually used or hired out Wilson as a slave in Illinois, the jury nonetheless returned a verdict in favor Melvin and against Wilson.

Wilson then appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri. In the next post, we shall see the Supreme Court stretching to reverse.