Samuel B. Smith vs. John Connelly and James Feron
View original image: Page  042
[missing figure]

They admit however that they refused to let him have one
third of the proceeds before a final settlement was made
and all costs and charges were paid. and these, defendants
do most positively deny, that according to their understan-
ding of the terms of the copartnership,, the said complain-
ant or either, of the other, partners is entitled, to any
dividend until all the company accounts have been
settled and all proper charges against it paid. and
that in this case there were no profits made, but a
great loss, sustained principally, by the bad mana-
gement of the complainant and Manson, as appears,
by said award. These, defendants also state and admit
that they did take out of the possession, of the said.

Gibbons, the fur and, other articles belonging to
the company which the complainant had improperly, and
without the consent, of these defendats who were then present in the Town of St LouisSt Louis caused, to be removed
from davis where they were first stored by JamesJames Fernon FernonJames Fernon ,
to the cellar, of said Gibbons,, This step these, defendants
were, induced to take from the conduct of said comp-
lainant in order to secure, themselves; for they now
have and then had every reason to believe that if
the said complainant could have effected a sale
and delivery of said furs, and other articles he would have possessed, himself of the proceeds of the sales and