Louis Scott, a man of colour v. William Burd
View original image: Page  069
[missing figure]

believes at which time defendant
was on his away to the East defendant
left for the East the 4th or 5th day of February 1836Witness is [ possitive ] that
defendant was not present when
Smelter called, a Mr. Sadler who
works in defendant shop interpreted
for Smelter on said [ ocasion, ]
the account against
Smelter for said repairs was
sent over to IllinoisIllinois defendants
son went over to complete the
work and remained there some
time Witness went there himself
and concluded to do no more
repairs, the amount charged against
Smelter never was collected to
was demanded by witness
in June following, the account
was entered on Burd TildenBurd & Co's Books
untill after Plaintiff brought
suit for his freedom and then
it was erased by defendant
and defendant [ disaproved ] of it
Smelter owes yet for the materials
and work done Smelter Brought
back the said StillsStills as old
copper and gave them payment
for the stills
Witness tried to get the account
paid out of the proceeds of said
copper, but did not succeed

Cross examined by Plaintiff
Counsel- Witness is a son in
law of defendant Deft left
St. LouisSt Louis for the east 4th or 5th of February 1836 saw Mr Smelter on
16th of February. Witness was in the employment
of Burd TildenBurd & Co
Defendant may have
witness to collect the amount
for plaintiffs wages in IllinoisIllinois
of said Smelter for said repairs,
BurdBurd never knew that the
plaintiff was in IllinoisIllinois, the witness
the act of sending
Plaintiff to IllinoisIllinois his act
as agent for the said Firm of
Burd TildenBurd & Co witness
himself being one of the firm
the amount of the bill for said
repairs was 2 dollars defendants
son went over at the
request of witness-
witness always considered the
said debt for 26 dollars a
bad one & would not be willing
to give much for it after suit
was brought by plaintiff
defendant [ errased ] the demand
from the Books--
JohnJohn W WJohn W BurdBurd - being sworn
and examined on part of defendant
stated that he was with
the firm of AndrewsAndrews and BurdBurd
about one year before it dissolved
& continued afterwards with the
said firm of BurdBurd TildenBurd & Co
up to the present time, that
Smelter called on Mr Rucker
their salesman to have some
repairs done on certain stills