Peter Primm vs. John Lane, James Mackey, John Bolly, and Jeduthan Kendal
View original image: Page  007
[missing figure]


confidence in the statements of the said BolyBolly
thereby induced to execute said writingas the security
of said LaneLane as aforesaid believing the foregoing
statements of the said BolyBolly to be correctbut the
said PeterPeter in fact says the said writing contained
nosuch conditions and operations inlaw
therefore the said PeterPeter says he wasin this behalfdeceived
and defrauded by the said BolyBolly as aforesaid all which the
said PeterPeter is ready to verifywherefore the said PeterPeter prays judgement
if the said plaintiff ought not to be banned from
having and maintaining his said action against him
and signed by your orator aforesaid attorney to which said
plea your oratortook and subscribed the following oath
to wit St. LouisSt Louis17th July 1815PeterPeter Primm the above Defandant
says that at the lasttermof thecourt he didnot
know of any person by whom he could prove the foregoing
faith but that since that time he has discovered there
is a witnessbeing by whom he expects to prove thesame
PeterPeter Primm sworn to and subscribed before me
M. PP Leduc . LeducP Leduc clk St Ls Circuit CourtCircuit Court and your
orator further shows that on the
seventeenth day of said month being the ninth day of said Term came the said KendalKendal by his said attorney
and your orator also by his said attorney before the
said Count upon which are and singular the
premisesbeing seen and heard by the said courtnow here
fully understood said nature deliberation being thereupon
had for that it seems to the court that the said first count
the plaintiff declaration is good and sufficient in law
to enable him the said plaintiff to have and maintain
his said action against the said defendant and nofurther
pleas being offered itis therefore found by the said Court
now here that the said defendants did undertake and
promise in manner and form asalleged in the plaintiffs
declaration and doassess the damagesofthe

View original image: Page  008
[missing figure]

Plaintiff sustained by reason of the non-performance
thereof to the sum of two hundred and forty
dollars It is there upon considered by the Court now
here that the plaintiff do have and recover of and from
the said defendant the said sum of two hundred and
forty dollar damage aforesaid in form aforeaid assessed
together with his costs and charges by himabout his
suit in this lacked said cost and expenses and that
he have his writ of execution thereof against to
said defendant and your orator further shows
that on the trial of the above cause there was no
evidence on the second count of the plaintiff
declaration fact that the aforeaid promissory note
only was produced on that trial and nothing else
and your Orator also further shows that on the
twenty fifth day of July in the year last aforesaid
a writ of execution issued on the said
judgment from the office of the clerk of the
aforeaid court and was then and there put into
the hands of the sheriff for the said county of
Saint LouisSt Louis which said execution is on the usual
at form commanding the said sheriff to make
the aforesaid sum of two hundred and forty dollars
damages and nineteen dollars and twenty three
cents for Corts of that suit to levy on the lands
and tenements goods and chattels of your Orator and for want
of sufficient landstenements goods and chattels to
take the body of your Orator and that his said
sheriff make return of said writ with the
said sum of money and show how he has
executed the same to the next October Term
of said Court to be holden at SaintSt Louis LouisSt Louis on the
second monday in October next and that he
have the said sum of money ready then> and there
to render the same to the said KendalKendal andyour