Henly Donnelson vs. Missouri Fur Company
View original image: Page  004
[missing figure]

service of the said defendants the
Company aforesaid and did faithfully
the said company for the term of one year
from the 19th of april 1809 and that he
therefore reasonably to have of the
said dependants other five hundred dollars
to wit at St LouisSt Louis aforesaid in the District
aforesaid whereof of they the said defendants
there had notice yet the said dependants
on any one of them on their agent them
after requested have not furnished the said
equipment any part there of or paid the said
sums of money or any part thereof but to
furnish the same or to pay the same on
any part thereof have hitherto -
and still refuse to the said plaintiff
his damages of seven hundred dollars and
therefore he suit by


his Attorney