it, an action was
brought by Scott for his freedom in the Circuit Court of St.
Louis county, (State court,) where there was a verdict and
judgment in his favor. On a writ of error to the Supreme
Court of the State, the judgment below was reversed, and the
case remanded to the Circuit Court, where it was continued
to await the decision of the case now in question.

The declaration of Scott contained three counts: one, that
Sandford had assaulted the plaintiff; one, that he had
assaulted Harriet Scott, his wife; and one, that he had
assaulted Eliza Scott and Lizzie Scott, his children.

Sandford appeared, and filed the following plea:

DRED SCOTT }
_v._ } _Plea to the jurisdiction of the Court._
JOHN F.A. SANFORD. }

APRIL TERM, 1854.

And the said John F.A. Sandford, in his own proper person,
comes and says, that this court ought not to have or take
further cognisance of the action aforesaid, because he says
that said cause of action, and each and every of them, (if
any such have accrued to the said Dred Scott,) accrued to
the said Dred Scott out of the jurisdiction of this court,
and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the courts of
the State of Missouri, for that, to wit: the said plaintiff,
Dred Scott, is not a citizen of the State of Missouri, as
alleged in his declaration, because he is a negro of African
descent; his ancestors were of pure African blood, and were
brought into this country and sold as negro slaves, and this
the said Sandford is ready to verify. Wherefore he prays
judgment, whether this court can or will take further
cognizance of the action aforesaid.

JOHN F.A. SANDFORD.

To this plea there was a demurrer in the usual form, which
was argued in April, 1854, when the court gave judgment that
the demurrer should be sustained.

In May, 1854, the defendant, in pursuance of an agreement
between counsel, and with the leave of the court, pleaded in
bar of the action:

1. Not guilty.

2. That the plaintiff was a negro slave, the lawful property
of the defendant, and, as such, the defendant gently laid
his hands upon him, and thereby had only restrained him, as
the defendant had a right to do.

3. That with respect to the wife and daughters of the
pl