John P. Cabanne, Pierre Chouteau, Barthole Benthold, Bernard Pratte, and Michael Smuel vs. Charles Hempstead, Theodore Hunt, and Manuel Lisa
View original image: Page  063
[missing figure]

and as one of the partner aforesaid had a right and full form and
auctiorety to upon the same matter as aforesaid â

The said Dependants further arrowing sarp, that it is true
that said Manual LisaManuel Lisa died at St. LouisSt Louis in the month of august 1820
having made his last still will testament and appointed the said Dependants
exceutors there of as stated in said Bill of Complaint â and
the said Dependants say. that hey have taken upon themselves the
fonders of said appointment and have received popapad themselves
of all the property real personal and mixed of said which
they could and â but among said goods , they did not find
said pettioner of as haged in said Bill of Complaint â

The said Dependant CharlesCharles Hempstead HempsteadCharles Hempstead arrowing, says
that at the time mentioned in said Bill of Complaint about
the 25th day of August 1820, the said MichalMichael Immull being at the
Term of St. LouisSt Louis and also to a filcher who was permit at the orbihation
aforesaid at Council Bleffs, being, in St. LouisSt Louis, the Said complainants
preped the said Humpilend to to have said matter arbiotrated
was much as said Immulls of pilchon was then present
and world same leave St. LouisSt Louis for the apporch MissouriMissouri, the said
Humplind wishing to leave said despute settled, before the depondant of said ImmellImmell &pilcha (the said complainants still
clamining said forms of petitions) without having, been qualified said as executor
and without the knowledge of the executive aforesaid who was then bying
said, did consent to the copy of is annexed to said Bill of complaints
marked exhibit No 3, because he said Hemprtrad concernd himself
ortribed by the still of said and LisaLisa is do so;

The said Charles, S. Hempstead, admets that said HenryHenry Shal
and PierrePierre Mencrrd took upon themselves the appointments aforesaid, &
hend the proof and alligate and each side, that they desagerd
and called in James Clemens as umpire, and that said Clemons
made a copy whereas is exhibited in said Bill 8 complaint
exhibit No 4.

View original image: Page  064
[missing figure]

but the said Dependant Charles SCharles S Hempstead . Hemprlead exfreply denies, that
the whole month of the evidence established by said parties he said
No planel and menand was establishmented he said claims. one the
eoxtrary, the said Hemprlead charge, the fact to be. that said
clemons did not true the evidence of said Immull&pelchon;
The said Dependant A Hemplead forther states, that he was not
apprised of the difference of opinion between said that&men and â
nor that they had called in said clemons until after his (said
clemons) decesion â that he was informed of that decission and set
the same time informed that the evidences aforesaid had not been he and by him â
for which various he said Hamprtiad did not believe said an and
legal and was determined not to abide by it â that he said Dependant
immediately applied to said Clemons to knorr the facts, said Clemons then
informed them, that all that true defnietted to him was the
articles of agreement of April 1918 between said calamne&Co&said
manurl LisaLisa for the sale of the stock of up the Messouri river
and the receipt of said manual for the form in question â
of Immanul
what he said not he and the station
nor pilcher â that his opinion&judgment was formed extruely
afore the face of the papers submitted â: he further said he said Depondent that
after he had made his arround â he had a commation and the
subject trith M. I. Pelcha, who had stated to him things
in relation to that affair which he had not true before apprised
of, and which is he had known before, his decision might
have been different from what is was â or word so that amount â
is it was, he concerned he had decided the only he could decide as he â had alone
judged from the papers submitted and from there he should judge so â
that he find nothing to do M. Pelchrer statements, and
therefore dismissed the matter from his â the said Dependant
forther states â that the first some he saw one of the complainants
vig . Calamne' which was a day after the above
conversation withJamesJames Colomons, the Dependants informs&informed