John P. Cabanne, Pierre Chouteau, Barthole Benthold, Bernard Pratte, and Michael Smuel vs. Charles Hempstead, Theodore Hunt, and Manuel Lisa
View original image: Page  017
[missing figure]

and as one of athe problem after and had a , full ponn and
much only to upon the same math as repair aid-

The said Defin clouds fenchon amusing Sarp, that it is true
that said allan she did at St LouisSt Louis in the month of august 1820
made his last nill md appointed the said defence only
executons thus of as in Billof complaild - also for the
the said says that they have taken themselves the
only of said appointment and have apopch themselves
of all the properly and mixed of row Victor, which
they coulod final - tret an said goods they did not find
said Sins palbour so as changed in said Bill of complaint-

He said Dependent am
that at the time mentioned in said Bill of complaning about
25th . day of August 1820 the said Michale Smmells ,
Sum of Louis - and also who was at che arbehaleon
afenced at Council Bluffs, being in P Louis, the said Complain with
preped the said to agree to haved said matter arbitrate
in much as said more then present
would some St LouisSt Louis for the appex ellipoeni, the said
to have said despate settled (be said complaments shall
claiming said options) method having execution
of the execution who was then lying
sick did consent to the copy often of is annexed to saw Bill of complained
submit also &, he because he said Hemprirued are you concerned himself
by the Bill of said to do so;

The said that said HenryHenry lb/> and sum took the appointment
the proofs and allegations & each side, that they
and called in and that said
made a copy saud Bill of Complaint
at 4

View original image: Page  018
[missing figure]
but he said Defendent Charles SCharles S Hempstead hampstead denis, that
the whole matter of the evidence subscribed by said pictures to said
and submitted to said on the
contrary she said Hampstead change the fact to be that said
elements did not sum the evidence of said of picture
He said Dependent HempsteadHempstead further states, that he was not
of the difference of opinion between said
nor that they had called in said ColemanColeman until after his (said
elemen's) decision â that he was informed of that decision and at
the same time informed that the evidence appeared had not not been heard by him
for which reasons he said HempsteadHempstead did not believe said an
legal and was delimined to said elemens to the said elemens taken
informed him, that all that free submitted to him was the
articles of agreement of April 1819between said Cabame M. Haid
for the go of the stock go up the MissouriMissouri river
the for the sum
and the receipt of said allowed in question
that he had not heard the statement not the
plicher - that her opinion judgement was formed
from the face of the paper submitted :he further said, department that
after he had made his arrounds-- he had a connection and the
subject with W. I. who had not free befire aoorused
of, and which if he had sombody before his decision neglect
have been different from what is was - or words to that amount-
as it was he concerned he had decided the only may be he could decide as he had alone
judged from the proper, submitted and from the should can ju;dge so-
that he had nothing to do much off . and
therefore the month from his - the said Dependent
further - that the first time some he saw one of the complimants
p[ became which was they after they also afater the above
conversation with James Clemons the Dependents informed