Preston and Others v. George W. Coons, Administrator of the Estate of Milton Duty, et al.
View original image: Page  115
[missing figure]
Preston, Braxton and others
vs
George W. CoonsGeorge W Coons
Administrator of MiltonMilton
Duty deceased and others
In the St. LouisCircuit Court
Circuit CourtCircuit Court
in Chancery
Nov. Term 1841

And the said George W. CoonsGeorge W Coons , administrator
with the will annexed of MiltonMilton Duty deceased
for further answer to such of the
complainants bill of complaint, as were
adjudged by the court not to have been
sufficiently answered to by him says - that the
said Duty in his life time did not to the
knowledge of their defendant make the said
David CoonsDavid Coons his financial agent, except
upon one occasion during the absence of
the said Duty upon business in the state
of MississippiMississippi when this defendant is
informed and believes that the said
Duty made the said David CoonsDavid Coons
his agent for the sole purpose of the
superintending his slaves, providing for
their wants, and receiving the moneys
which the complainent PrestonPreston might
pay over for the hire of the said
slaves That the said Duty did not pay
into the hands of the said David CoonsDavid Coons
all moneys from the hire of the com-
planiants as he received it, nor among
except such so much as
was necessary for the ordinary expenses of
said Duty, as in said bill - And
this defendant does not know whether or not
the said Duty had any use for money
otherwise than for his ordinary expenses

View original image: Page  116
[missing figure]
except when he was engaged in the pork
business, and if the fact he , he requested
proof of the same
And then defendant further states that
he does not know whether or not the said
Duty ever received the proceeds of the sale of
said pork in the notes of the Banks of
the state of MississippiMississippi nor in what
funds he ever did receive the same or
any part thereof, if he ever did receive
any of the proceeds of said sales - But
this defendant is informed and believes
that the said Duty did not receive
any of the proceeds of sale of said
pork on his visit to the state of
MississippiMississippi in the spring of the year
1837 before stated -And
this said Duty did not on his return from
said state in St. LouisSt Louis in the month of
in the year eighteen hundred
and thirty seven, nor immediately
there after pay any MississippiMississippi money
received by him for the proceeds of the
sale of his pork to the said David CoonsDavid Coons
at a discount of fifteen percent, or at
any other discount. But this defendant
says, as he has in his answer before stated-
that the said Duty on his return from
the state of MississippiMississippi did return to the said
David CoonsDavid Coons between three and four thousand
dollars of MississippiMississippi money belonging to
said CoonsCoons and this defendant says