Guillory Louisiana Historical Quarterly Articles


LOUISIANA HISTORICAL QUARTERLY 
Vol. 15 (1932), p. 545-546
INDEX TO SPANISH JUDICIAL RECORDS OF LOUISIANA
 
January 20. [1781] Criminal proceedings brought by Claudio Guillory to recover a 
slave that had run away. No. 3494, 13 pp. Court of Alcalde Jacinto Panis. No 
Assessor, Escribano, Mazange.
The slave defends herself, asserting and apparently proving to the satisfaction 
of the prosecutor that she had been emancipated by the petitioner's father.
Claudio Guillory alleges that for more than six years, his slave, Margarita, has 
been a fugitive and that he could not locate her until now, when he found her on 
the bank of the river in front of this city in a pirogue belonging to Miguel 
Barre who sells fruit brought to New Orleans for that purpose. He asks that his 
civil and criminal complaint against both be admitted and that these parties be 
arrested and punished. Alcalde Jacinto Panis orders the criminals and 
accomplices arrested, their property seized and their declarations taken.
Warden of the prison certifies to the arrest.
Antonio Gosson certifies that he has arrested and put in the public prison, 
Miguel Barre and the negress, Margarita. This is followed by an inventory of 
Barre's property which has been seized.
Miguel Barre admits that he has the alleged slave in his employment but contends 
that she is a free negress.
Miguel Barre's declaration is taken, which is to the effect that it is true that 
he has had Margarita, the free negress, in his services, but that she is free on 
the strength of an act of emancipation granted by Gregorio Guillory, father of 
the plaintiff.
Margarita produces the document to prove her emancipation.
Margarita makes a declaration that she is free under the act of emancipation 
which she duly presents and in virtue of which she hired her services to Miguel 
Barre in whose possession she was on the date of the document authorized by her 
late owner, Gregorio Guillory. Before Andres Almonester, Notary Public, December 
31, 1770. 
The prisoners ask for release.
Miguel Barre petitions for his release from prison and for Margarita's 
liberation too. The Court orders both set free as they are innocent of any 
criminal act such as they have been accused of by Claudio Guillory. Barre's 
seized property is returned to him, for which he gives a receipt. margarita asks 
to present her act of emancipation. 
The Act of Emancipation.
This Notarial Act, in certified copy is in French and Spanish and is rather 
unusual. It is an example of what was done in the country Parishes to accomplish 
an end when the services of neither judge nor notary could be obtained. This act 
states that Gregorio Guillory now in the city is a resident of Opoulosas, who in 
consideration of thirty years of services and for other motives worthy of 
renumeration drew up a paper for his slave, Margarita, and her children, on 
April 13, of the current year, (1770). He was then on his plantation without a 
notary or a judge to authorize the act. Now that he is in the city, for greater 
validation of this document he asks the present escribano to copy it literally, 
the tenor of which is as follows: (In French in the original). I, Gregoire 
Guillorie, over my ordinary mark, of my own free will and that of my children, 
for the life and thirty years services rendered me by Margarita, my slave, not 
only to me but to my children before and after the death of my wife I declare 
that I give her her freedom as well as that of her children, on condition that 
she serves me up to my death. Done and executed of my own free will, April 13, 
1770. Jean Batiste Guillorie, son, Ordinary mark of Mr. Gregoire Guillorie, 
Claude Guillorie, son, Luis Guillorie, son. Signature of Mr. Guillorie approved 
Benoit. 
It is resumed in Spanish where the Notary certifies that it conforms to the 
original that remains in his possession and to which he refers. Gregorio 
Guillory then proceeds to ratify in due form and according to Spanish 
requirements the freedom he has already granted to Margarita and her children, 
which she will enjoy in full after his death. Up until that time she must remain 
in his services. 
This certified copy ends the record.



LOUISIANA HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
Vol. 18 p. 204-213 
January 1935 Laura L. Porteous
INDEX TO SPANISH JUDICIAL RECORDS OF LOUISIANA XLIV, March 1782
 
March 9. [1782] Margarita, a free negress, vs. The Guillory heirs, to compel 
them to declare her children free and to transmit the declaration to this 
Tribunal. No. 3440. 71 pp. Court of Alcade Panis. Assessor, Positigo. Escribano, 
L. Mazange.
This suit has some value to the historians, showing as it does that the 
commanders of the Posts in the Spanish Era took jurisdiction of probate 
proceedings in their several bailiwicks and retained possession of the original 
documents. It is possible this occurred in all instances where no controversy 
arose that required the intervention of action of the authorities in New 
Orleans. Thus it appears here that the Succession of Manon La Caze, the deceased 
wife of Gregoire Guillory, was opened in Opelousas before Alexander De Clouet, 
Commander of that Post, and that her surviving husband made certain written 
agreements with the children of the marriage in the nature of a settlement of 
their mother's estate. None of these proceedings seemed to have required the 
approval of the Governor or of the Courts in new Orleans.
The suit under reveiw was, however, brought in New Orleans, before the Court of 
the Alcalde. It was a direct action by Marguerite, an ex-slave of Guillory pere 
et mere, against the heirs of both, all residents of Opelousas, to recover the 
children of the ex-slave on the ground that plaintiff and her children had been 
lawfully emancipated by Guillory, and that her children were being illegally 
held in slavery by Guillory's heirs. While the latter insisted on a trial before 
De Clouet, he resisted their plea and decided that they must take the slaves to 
New Orleans and make their defense there. This ruling seems to confirm the 
theory advanced in the first paragraph of this note, that the plea of the heirs 
was in the nature of a plea to the jurisdiction of the Alcalde's Court though 
not couched in that language. 
The first entry is a note stipulating that pages 1 to 6, consisting of a 
certified copy of the emancipation of Margarita and her children, has been 
removed by decree dated March 31, 1783.
The next, or page 7, is Margarita's petition, saying it is evident from the act 
of emancipation, which she duly presents, that her four children should enjoy 
their freedom just as she does, but instead they suffer under the power of the 
Guillory heirs, who are unwilling to free them. Considering that the defendants 
have petitioned for an opportune occasion to alienate them and to remove them, 
secretly, beyond the limits of the Colony, she prays the Alcalde to order the 
Commander of Opelousas, Alexandro De Clouet, to notify the Guillory heirs, at 
their cost, to present themselves in this Tribunal so as to defend their rights 
or else appoint an attorney, duly instructed, to represent them, and if they do 
not appear within four months in their defense will not be admitted in Court, 
and they will be held as usurpers of the freedom of her children, who should now 
be enjoying it. Permitting her to proceed against them, when the said time has 
passed, for the damages and prejudices which have been occasioned to her and to 
them. 
In a second petition she states that in order that the foregoing may have 
effect, she prays to have a despatch issued and sent to Commander Alexandro De 
Clouet with an enclosure of a written copy of her act of emancipation, of this 
petition, and of Alcalde Panis' decree. The Court rules: In the principal 
petition the instrument presented by this party is accepted, and in the 
secondary one let a despatch be issued in due form to the Commander at 
Opelousas, Alexandre De Clouet, with an enclosure of the said instrument, the 
petition, and this decree so that upon the sight of it he may be pleased to send 
to this Tribunal, the four sons of Margarita, the free negress. For this purpose 
let him request the help of the Governor of this Province.
The Despatch.
From page 9 to the reverse side of page 21 contains the despatch sent by Alcalde 
Jacinto Panis to Commander De Clouet, consisting of a copy of the act of 
emancipation, removed from the beginning of this folio, Margarita's petition, 
and Panis' judgment. There had been a previous suit between the Guillory heirs 
and Margarita, dated January 20, 1781. No 3494, before Alcalde Panis entitled 
"Criminal Proceedings by Claudio Guillory to recover a fugitive slave." The 
certified copy of the emancipation shows that Margarita was first given her 
freedom by her master, Gregoire Guilleroie, by private act, dated April 13, 
1770. Later, December 31, 1770, he had the act recorded in New Orleans before 
Andres Almonester y Roxas, Notary Public.
Proceedings in Opelousas. 
The case is transferred to Opelousas. The first document is signed by Chevalier 
De Clouet, dated July 25, 1782. It stipulates that Messrs. Guillaury Brothers 
submit to the decree of Mr. Piernas, Governor General, ad interim, for the 
Province, and will conduct the slaves to his Tribunal. The second, also signed 
by De Clouet, dated July 31, 1782, is a permit and order to Messrs. Guillory to 
go to the city and to take with them four slaves who will be at the disposition 
of the Tribunal.
Certifications made in Opelousas.
A copy of three separate certifications, signed by Fuselier de la Claire, A. 
Boisdore', and Joseph Carriere. The first, de la Claire, certifies that Gregoire 
Guillory rendered an account to his children of the estate which comes to them 
from their mother, and delivered to them in payment, a negress, named Margarita, 
but when he found she was worth more than the full amount of the remainder of 
the said estate, Guillory came to Opelousas by night and forcibly removed the 
slave from his children's plantation. Baptiste Guillory, eldest son and tutor to 
his minor brothers, made a judicial declaration upon this abduction.
A. Boisdore' certifies: Margaret was given by Mr. Guillory to his children, on 
account for what should come to them from their deceased mother. This slave and 
her children were carried in the inventory of Mrs. Guillory's estate.
Joseph Carriere certifies: When Mr. Guillory rendered an account to his children 
of their mother's estate, he paid to them as part of their shares, a negress, 
named Margaret, together with her children.
De Clouet certifies that the three foregoing declarations conform to their 
originals, which remain in the papers of the Archives of his command. Dated, 
Opelousas, July 29, 1782. 
Guillory heirs petition.
A petition is presented to Mr. De Clouet, dated Opelousas, July 27, 1782, by 
Baptiste, Claude, Joseph and Louis Guillory, who give a resume of this case and 
protest against Panis’ order to go to the city with their four slaves. They 
state that in the year 1770 their father had the schoolmaster of the Post, and 
without any legal title, draw up a simple note granting freedom to the negress, 
Margaret, and her four children, thus profiting by their ages and incompetence 
to make their signatures or marks, and assuring them that he had the wherewith 
besides to discharge their part of their maternal portion. In 1773, their father 
agreed to their demand and Fuselier de la Claire, then Commander, ruled than an 
account must be rendered by the former, who being unable to discharge his 
obligations for their legitimate dues gave them in payment, the negress and her 
children valued at 2000 francs, as appears in the judicial inventory, here 
attached, and the attestations of Messrs. Fuselier de la Claire, Antoine 
Boisdore’, Joseph Carriere, and Francois Le Melle. This paper, signed by them, 
stipulates that the emancipation is null, as the act must be made in judicial 
form, for which their father assured them he had an act legally drawn up. 
Viewing the situation, they were constrained by a felling of respect and gave 
him a quittance for the remainder which was still due them. This statement may 
be proven by the papers here attached. In 1777, their father, Gregoire Guillory, 
appeared by night, at the home of the petitioners, without a passport, armed 
with a knife to remove the negress by force. They made no opposition to their 
father’s actions, since they were his children and he promised the return of the 
slave to them after his death, as he said he needed her services only during his 
life. He did not keep his agreement and profited by an informal note of 
emancipation to have an authentic act passed while he lived. They should have 
been notified of this proceeding, because they were the real owners of the 
slave. They ask to have their just claim considered, stressing their sad state, 
as it is well known here that they must support their wives and children by the 
sweat of their brows. They further pray for justice and the return of the 
negress, who claims her freedom, since she and her children rightfully belong to 
them. Chevalier de Clouet rules: Considering Mr. Panis’ sentence and Mr. 
Piernas’’ decree, Messrs. Guillory must conduct the slaves to the Superior 
Tribunal to attest to the truth of their explanation.
A previous petition presented by Baptiste Guillory.
This is followed by a petition to Mr. De Clouet, dated Opelousas, April 27, 
1778, in which Baptiste Guillory sets forth that at the time of the partition of 
his mother's estate, his father gave her heirs, in payment of their claims, a 
negress, named Margaret, but what was his surprise when later, his father came 
by night to remove the slave, and naturally because of his affection for his 
father, he did not make any opposition. Mr. Guillory asked to have the use of 
her services during his life, with the understanding that she be returned to the 
children after his death. He was informed later that before his death, his 
father gave her freedom. He could not do this without greatly wronging his 
children. The petitioner knows that Margarita may be found in the city to-day 
where she has lived since taken there along with other slaves by some Americans, 
from a place called Manschac. He asks to have her returned to him and her act of 
emancipation annulled. Chevalier De Clouet rules: The petitioner must address 
himself to Mr. de Galvez, Governor General, and he, De Clouet, attests that the 
negress was actually removed by night, and that she belongs to the late Mr. 
Guillory's children by account rendered of the estate of their late mother, of 
which Mr. Fuselier de la Claire took cognizance.
De Clouet certifies to de la Claire's petition.
Dated Opelousas, January 20, 1779, Chevalier de Clouet certifies to a petition 
made by Fuselier de La Claire to the Governor, which is to the effect that the 
demand made by Baptiste Guillory is just. He prays His Excellency, Mr. de 
Galvez, Governor General of this Province, to examine the original inventory, 
noting the appraisement of the said negress, who was given to Gregoire 
Guillory's children as property coming to them from their mother's estate. He 
removed her by night, about one year after he had rendered an account to his 
children. Mr. Guillory gave the slave her freedom at the expense of her proper 
owners. This emancipation, according to the law of nations, must be annulled. It 
is only permitted to legitimate owners to accord this grace with the consent of 
the Chief-residence (Chef-Lieu).
Inventory of Mrs. Guillory's estate.
Dated, Opelousas, March 13, 1773, Inventory of Mrs. Guillory's estate, made at 
the request of her sons on the order of Mr. Fuselier de la Claire, Commander of 
Opelousas and Atakapas, in the he presence of Antoine Boisdore', Michelle 
Brigaque, Francois le Melle, and Joseph Carriere, named as arbitrators. The 
estate consists principally of slaves, live stock, and real property. Margarita 
and her four children are valued at 2000 livres.
Guillory heirs petition de la Claire. 
The inventory is followed by a petition dated Opelousas, March 8, 1773 to 
Fuselier de la Claire, and signed by J.B. Guillory, Joseph Guillory, Louis 
Guillory and Claude Guillory, asking to have their father render an account of 
the estate of their late mother, Manon La Caze, this to include both her own and 
her community property, and obligating themselves to support their father until 
his death. Fuselier de la Claire rules: Gregoire Guillory must render an account 
to his children of the estate which should come to them from their mother. The 
three younger sons must name a curator, who may proceed under their 
authorization. Chevalier de Clouet certifies that the foregoing copy conforms to 
the original which remains in the Archives of his command.
J. B. Guillory receipts to his father. 
The next entry is dated, Opelousas, March 19, 1773, and is a declaration or 
receipt given before Fuselier de la Claire, in the presence of Jean Paillet and 
Jean Baptiste Durieux, stating that Jean Baptiste Guillory appeared in person 
and declares to have received from his father, Gregoire Guillory 2315 livres, 12 
sols in negroes, live stock, and effects mentioned in the appraised inventory of 
the estate of his mother, Manon La Caze, now dead. Gregoire Guillory further 
paid over to each of his children, as a remainder, 254 livres 7 sols 6 deniers. 
J. B. Guillory give his father, here present, a receipt for this amount. 
Alexandro de Clouet certifies the above is a true copy of the original which 
remains in the Archives of Opelousas.
The case is resumed in New Orleans.
After the receipt of the above certified copies, the case is resumed in New 
Orleans, on August 16, 1782 when Catarine, Maria, Joseph, and Juan Bautista, 
called Guillory free mulattoes, set forth that according to their act of 
emancipation, duly presented, they are free, yet they have been held as slaves 
for many years. They have been held by force and treated with cruelty by the 
Guillory heirs, who wish to annul their freedom which was granted to them by 
their late father. For this reason they present themselves in this Superior 
Tribunal so as to contest their claim for liberty which was arranged according 
to law and drawn up with due formalities authorized by their owner, who had 
acquired them during his married life. The act of emancipation was ratified in 
this city before Andres Almonester, and in consequence of it they protest 
against any document, or certification, obtained by the heirs to prove bad 
conduct on the part of their father. Such testimony should not be admitted in 
Court, because it is contrary to law. Their freedom was granted to them by an 
honorable man, whose conduct was always good, as everyone knows their deceased 
master to have been. The heirs are wanting in due respect to their father’s 
memory. Their freedom was given in remuneration for 30 years services on the 
part of their mother. Therefore, they pray to have their emancipation approved 
and to have the Guillory heirs ordered to leave them in peaceful possession of 
it, leaving them free to work in this city for themselves alone, for up until 
to-day they have been treated with cruelty merely for saying they were free. In 
support of the validity of their claim for freedom, they refer to the decision 
in the succession of Renato Augusto Chouteau, (La. Hist. Qy, XI, No. 3, p. 513) 
Mr. Chouteau had freed his two negresses and confirmed their emancipation in his 
will, but after his death they were claimed by his heirs, who were referred to 
the city of Havana. Then there is the case of the free mulattress, Margarita, 
Mr. Methote’s slave, which was tried in Governor General Bernardo de Galvez’ 
Court. If this Court should decide to condemn them, as in the case of the 
Chouteau slaves, obligating them to make good the part belonging to the Guillory 
minors, according to the appraisement of their parent and themselves, they ask 
to be leased out from now on so as to earn the full amount they will be called 
upon to pay. For the prosecution of this instance (suit), they name Fernando 
Rodriguez as their attorney. Alcalde Panis sends this petition to the Guillory 
heirs and appoints Rodriguez to defend the slaves. He must be notified as to 
accept and take oath. He qualifies.
Certified copy of a notarial act. 
Here filed is a certified copy of a notarial act, dated New Orleans, August 12, 
1782, by which Joseph Guillory appoints Francisco Broutin his attorney, to 
represent his interests in the suit prosecuted against him by Margarita, a free 
negress, to declare free her four children, Catalina, Maria, Joseph, and Juan 
Bautista. Presenting this document, Francisco Broutin, in the name of his 
client, Joseph Guillory, acting for his brothers and the free mulattos, 
Catalina, Maria, Joseph, and Juan Buatista, residents of this city, declare they 
have presented themselves in this Superior Tribunal, the first named to annul 
the freedom of the latter, and these last to defend their rights. All parties 
say that after due reflection and with instruction and counsel of intelligent 
persons, they have determined to settle this matter amicably under various 
conditions advantageous to all parties. Therefore, they ask to have these 
proceedings suspended and to order Francisco Broutin to hold the mulattos in his 
possession until Joseph Guillory, who holds the procurations of his brothers, 
can obtain their consent to proceed with this adjustment. Alcalde Jacinto Panis 
rules accordingly.
Joseph Guillory's petition. 
Joseph Guillory further petitions saying, while they are waiting for a general 
power of attorney from his brothers to arrive, he asks to have the mulattos 
leased out judicially by the month, until this Tribunal makes a disposition of 
the case. Guillory’s petition is ordered sent to the defender of the mulattos. 
Fernando Rodriguez agrees on account of the poverty of his clients, because if 
permitted to work they can earn enough for their food, lodging, and clothes, it 
being well understood that if the definitive sentence is pronounced in their 
favor the lease becomes null. Jacinto Panis rules: proceed with the lease of the 
Guillory mulattoes. Let it be publicly cried as athe law requires, reserving to 
himself the right to name the day for auction of the same. The first, second, 
third calls are given September 7, 11, and 16, but no offers were made for the 
mulattoes.
The Guillory’s general procuration. 
Here follows a procuration, dated Opelousas, September 9, 1782, drawn up before 
Alexandro de Clouet. It states that Jean Baptiste, Claude, Joseph and Louis 
Guillory, all residents of Opelousas, appeared and granted a general and special 
power of attorney to Francisco Broutin to settle the case with Margarita, the 
free negress, and her four children, Cateche, aged about 9, Jean Baptiste about 
16, Joseph about 13, and Marie about 12. Next is a petition from Juan Bautista, 
Claudio, Joseph, and Luis Guillory, who aver that by a foregoing decree it was 
ordered to lease out the mulattoes. The three public calls were made, but no one 
bid on them. Considering this, they declare they know some persons who wish to 
hire them, so they ask to have other days set to make further calls to lease 
them definitively. Panis accepts the procuration, and names the following day 
for the auction and adjudication of the lease to hire the slaves.
The lease.
On October 9, 10, and 11 (1782) a lease is offered for four mulattos for one 
year, but there were no bids. Then Fernando Rodriguez, attorney for the slaves 
asks for the records of the case so as to take whatever legal steps may seem 
convenient to the rights of his clients. Petition granted. In a second petition 
he sets forth that the negress and her four mulatto children named Guillory, 
have been maintained in this city for more than three months awaiting the 
results of a suit pending against them, brought by the Guillory heirs. Various 
calls have already been given to lease them out, as requested by the said heirs, 
until the conclusion of this litigation. The offer to lease has had no effect, 
since no bidder appeared. Considering that the negress and her children have 
nothing with which to support themselves in this city, he prays that during the 
term of vacation, which is near at hand, they may be permitted to work down at 
Barataria, and when this time has passed they will again present themselves 
before this Tribunal for the continuation of these proceedings, where they will 
remain at its orders until final judgment. Alcalde Panis orders this petition 
sent to the opposition.
The Guillory heirs answer the foregoing request. 
The case now passed into the Court of Juan Ventura Morales (January 23, 1783), 
where the Guillory heirs answer the above petition, refusing to consent to the 
Barataria plan. They claim the slaves might run away, get drowned, or many other 
contingencies might arise prejudicial to them. They again pray to have them 
leased until this cause is sentenced. The Court rules: As the vacation is over, 
the permission to go to Barataria is denied; let new calls be made to lease the 
mulattoes.
Second calls to lease the slaves.
On February 5, 8, and 11, (1783) three new calls are given; then the two sides 
decide to compromise. They present a joint petition setting forth certain 
conditions to be expressed in a written instrument of agreement which will be 
drawn up to conclude this affair, authorized before the present escribano. All 
parties pray to have this suit broken and cancelled and annulled. Morales, under 
Postigo's advice rules: Let the agreement be drawn up; to this effect he 
interposes his authority and judicial decree.
Margarita asks the return of the copy of her act.
Margarita asks the return of the certified copy of her act of emancipation, 
which also includes that of her children. Petition Granted. She receipts for it. 
This brings about the removal of the first six pages of the folio, and the note 
is inserted stating the reason why these pages are missing.
Certified copy of the act of agreement.
The gist of the act of agreement is: Margarita Guillory, a free negress, and her 
four mulatto children must pay to the Guillory heirs 700 pesos, in conformity to 
and under the following conditions: 150 pesos which has to be counted as 
diminished by the personal labors of her son, Juan Buatista, during two years 
and two months that he must remain in the service of Juan B. Guillory, and 150 
pesos that she has to pay in cash, 50 pesos more to be paid within three months, 
and the remaining 250 pesos within two years counted from this day. As soon as 
this amount shall be paid, the Guillory heirs agree to give Maria, Joseph, Juan 
Bautista, and Catalina their freedom. The above act is dated, New Orleans, April 
5, 1783. 
A copy of the act filed with the record.
Margarita petitions to have a copy of this agreement filed at the end of the 
proceedings and to have the costs taxed, which will be paid by the Guillory 
heirs. Morales rules accordingly. Luis Liotaud qualifies to make a taxation of 
costs, but never does. His acceptation and oath before Fernando Rodriguez ends 
the proceedings.