pally in notes of the Banks
of the State of MississippiMississippi, with which
some time in the month of 1837 he
returned to St.LouisSt Louis, and immediately there
after, paid the said MississippiMississippi money
amounting to three thousand dollars or
upwards to the said David CoonsDavid Coons , at a
discount of about 15 percent and whether
the said payment together with the hire of
your orators and oratrices and other money
afterwards received and deposited in the hands
of the said David CoonsDavid Coons did not extinguish
all the claims of said DavidDavid for money ad
vanced on account of pork, and did not
leave a considerable sum due to said Duty
at the time of his death - nor whether the
said Duty took up his notes at the time
he paid to the said DavidDavid the said Mis
sissippi money, as aforesaid, or took any
receipt therefor, or for any money deposited
as aforesaid.

Sixth. For that the said GeorgeGeorge has not sufficiently set
forth whether or not the said notes
executed by said Duty to said DavidDavid Coons
CoonsDavid Coons , for the sum
of between three or four thousand
dollars, as above stated, were made
use of again in the hands of the said
DavidDavid to establish large claims against
the estate of said Duty after his death.

Seventh. For that said GeorgeGeorge has not set
forth in his said answer whether or
not the said GeorgeGeorge is the son of Said

David CoonsDavid Coons , and whether said HughHugh Gal
lager and said GeorgeGeorge at the time of the death of the said
Duty were both in the employment of
the said David CoonsDavid Coons .

Eighth. For that the said GeorgeGeorge has not set forth
whether or not he said GeorgeGeorge did on
the night of the death of said Duty,
order one of your orators, PrestonPreston , to
bring to him said GeorgeGeorge the trunk con-
taining the papers and money of the said
Duty, and whether or not he did in the
presence of the persons, charged as having
been present in said Bill, tear up and
destroy a number of said papers, and take away others with him - nor whether
the said GeorgeGeorge did not at the said time
receive from one James AdamsJames Adams an
indignant remonstrance against such
illegal conduct, and whether the said
GeorgeGeorge did not reply that he could
not help it, nor whether the said GeorgeGeorge
did not immediately thereafter take
out letters of administration on said
Duty'sDuty's estate, and whether or not among
the first claims brought forward
and allowed by the St.Louis County
court were those of his father the
said David CoonsDavid Coons amounting to the
sum of $3683, 68 1/2

Ninth. For that the said GeorgeGeorge does not in
his said answer sufficiently set forth, whether
or not the pretended claims of said David CoonsDavid Coons established
in said County CourtCircuit Court , as aforesaid,