Preston and Others v. George W. Coons, Administrator of the Estate of Milton Duty, et al.
View original image: Page  175
[missing figure]

These defendants have no personal Knowledge
of the contents and provisions of the last will
of said Duty, if such were made, except
from the allegations contained in said bill
of complaint and from the Exhibit
therewith filed purporting to be a true copy
of said will and so far as they are concerned
they require that the existence of said will,
if such there be, to be legally established to
the satisfaction of the Court. These defendants
are informed and belive that the said duty did
become acquainted with the said David CoonsDavid Coons
soon after his, said Duty'sDuty's arrival in St.LouisSt Louis
and admit the fact so to be: but whether
or not the said Duty made the said DavidDavid Coons
CoonsDavid Coons his financial agent, or paid into his
hands all or any money arising from the
hire of the complainants as he received it,
or any money from other sources, as in
said bill alleged, these complainants have
no knowledge, and do not
admit the allegations, but require the same, if
material to be duly proven - and whether
or not the only occasion on which
the said Duty had any use for any money
except for his ordinary expenses,as in said bill alleged was when
engaged in the pork business, these defendants
neither know nor admit, but, if the fact
be material, they require the same to be legally
established. These defendants have been
informed and believe that the said Duty
in his life time was engaged in the pork
business at St. LouisSt Louis in the year 1837 or

View original image: Page  176
[missing figure]
or 1838 - and that the said DavidDavid Coons
CoonsDavid Coons from time to time advanced large
sums of money to said Duty on account
of said pork business, and that said Duty
in consequence thereof became largely indeb
ted to said CoonsCoons in his lifetime but to
what amount these defendants have no personal
knowledge, nor do they know the extent of
the transactions between said Duty and
the said David CoonsDavid Coons ,- except as may be herein after
noted.
Nor do these defendants know whether the
said Duty executed his notes or due bills for
the amount of indebtedness or any part
thereof to said David CoonsDavid Coons , nor, if so exe
cuted as in said bill alleged, do these defendants
with which understanding as to the payment
thereof, or whether there was any understanding
in reference thereto - nor whether the
said Duty attended the sales of his pork in
person in the South, nor whether or not
he received any money arising from the sale
thereof, nor if so, do they know whether it
was in notes of the Bank of the State of MississippiMississippi
nor do these defendants know whether or
not the said Duty returned from Mississip
pi with any such notes to St.LouisSt Louis as in
said bill alleged, nor whether he ever paid
any MississippiMississippi money after his return
to said David CoonsDavid Coons , at any discount or other
wise.
And if the last mentioned allegations
in said bill be material, these defendants
do not admit the truth of them, but require
the same to be duly proven.