Then next term the consequence of
this understanding with the said Risque, this
official delayed filing the answer of the said
Executors of David CoonsDavid Coons , and took the time
necessary to enable them to obtain the requisite
information to make a more full answer-
and made no motion for dissolving the
injunction on the part of said G.W. Coons,
and in such motion on his part
was made at the last term in consequence
of the understanding aforesaid - a short time
after this understanding with said Risque - (and
as this affiant believes, about three meets thereafter,)
and during the absence of said Risque from St LouisSt Louis,
a decree nisi against said Executors was
asked for by Mr. TownsendTownsend , acting for said Risque
in his absence and was as this affiant supposed
there granted by the Court - although the Record
shows that said decree was not entered up
till the month of February following - this
affiant placed a motion on the
or the last term of this Court to set aside said
decree nisi which owing to the sudden
adjournment of the Court was not heard
This affiant therefore states that the reason
why the answer of the said Executors of DavidDavid Coons
CoonsDavid Coons was not duly filed in time and before
a decree nisi against them was obtained,
because of an agreement and understanding
between this affiant and the said Risque that
this affiant might have time to file said answer
at his convenience and that had is not

been for said understanding and agreement
an answer would have been filed
before a Decree nisi was moved
for and obtained by said Townsurd.