John P. Cabanne, Pierre Chouteau, Barthole Benthold, Bernard Pratte, and Michael Smuel vs. Charles Hempstead, Theodore Hunt, and Manuel Lisa
View original image: Page  035
[missing figure]

Deposition taken at the office of JosephJoseph in the city
of St.LouisSt Louis on monday the ninth day of Febuary in the your
and one thousand eight hundred and twenty four, between
the hour of six in the forenoon and six in the afternoon of the
sameday and continued from day to any to the fourtenth
of the same same between the hours aforesaid the same
taken by virtue of value notice and to be readin
evidence on the of a certain suit pendingwith in the
circuit court of the county of St.LouisSt Louis thing as a court ofchances
and in which JeanCabanne and others are complaints and
charles HempsteadHempstead and
but are or
the part of the respondents

JamesJames being duly soon
That or the twenty fifth day of august in the year eighteen hundred and twenty at the request of
by the parties aforesaid
he acted as umpire on an award to be renewed by the said
That the matter subscribed to then for arbitrators were
as follows whether the followandreceived
in Mr.MichaelMichael (who was sent out from
) after
the first day of June 1819 to be considered as beloing
to CabanneCabanne or to the late the original of that
in the bill of and as he belives some other
there with but the contents of which he does not
recollect as also certain more to him by PierrePierre
one of the arbitrators were the only evidence to
him on which to form is award the deponent further
saith that word evidence was advanced neither were the
parties aforesaid or any one as their agents heard before
the said arbitrators he further that he does not

View original image: Page  036
[missing figure]

that any of the parties were made acquanted with his
appointment by the arbitrators as their

The deponent further saith that after the making of the awardabove
to some person to him on the
subject and required of him whether certain evidence which
was to had been furnished him answered it
had not observed to the person whom he being was
HempsteadHempstead that he could not tell what infulence
it might have had on his decision but that from the
evidence on which his opinion was formed the same opinion
or award would also and have been given- That
some that time after he was applied to by one of the parties
side, to but again which he refused to
and stated as a reason that other evidence might be added
which might infulence him to give a different award
account he decline so to do notwilling to have
it and that he had of mentioned
different award in the same
the additional evidence which might be added would justify
a different award from the me given


Sworn to
on the
had let the hoursfirst
above mentioned before we