St. Louis Circuit Court For March Term 1832County of St. Louis Ss:

Colman Duncan (who sues herein to the
use of James J. Thomas ) by J Spalding complains of Jonathan
Duncan of a plea of breach of Covenant For that whereas heretofore
to wit on the twenty fifth day of May in the year of our
Lord one thousand eight hundred and and thirty at said County. The
said defendant by his certain writing obligatory sealed with the seal of the said defendant and executed duly by him which said writing
is now here to the Court shown the date whereof is the day and year
aforesaid promised ten months after the date thereof to pay to said
Coloman Duncan or order the sum of one hundred dollars: and
twenty months after the date thereof he promised to pay said Coloman
the further sum of one hundred dollars: and thirty months after
the date thereof he promised to pay said Coloman the futher sum
of one hundred dollars, said two last mentioned sums to
hear interest from the date of said writing at the rate of six
per cent per annum for value received, which writing obligatory
was subject to the following condition thereunder written namely
that whereas said writing was obligatory for the benefit of Gilbert who signed said
instrument whose labor it was hoped would meet those payments
that if said Gilbert should die or become from sickness or ac-
cident permanently unable to work with at any time within thirty
months from the date of said writing obligatory, then that only
the notable proportion of the above sums should be paid:
and said plaintiff in fact saith that said Jonathan hath not
paid the sum of money secondly above mentioned which was
due twenty months after the date of said writing obligatory nor
any part thereof. Although the said Gilbert has not this nor has
he hitherto become from sickness or accident permanently unable
to work, and although twenty months have elapsed since the
date of said writing: nor has any person paid the same money
or any part of it: but the whole of the same to wit of said
second installment remains in arrear and unpaid contrary to the
tenor and meaning of said writing and of said covenant of said
Jonathan so by him made as aforesaid and so said plaintiff saith
that said defendant although often required so do hath not kept
the said covenant so by him made as aforesaid, but hath broken
the same and to keep the same with said plaintiff hath refused
and still refuses, To the damage of said plaintiff of
four hundred dollars & therefore he brings his suit & c.

J. Spalding
atty for plff

Country of Saint Louis Ss
The State of Missouri To the Sheriff of the country of Saint Louis greeting

We command you to summon Jonathan Duncan that he be and appear
before the Judge of our circuit court at the next term thereof to be held at the city
of St Louis within and for the country of Saint Louis on the fourth Monday of
March next then and there to answer unto Colman Duncan of a plea of
Breach of Covenant to the damage of said plaintiff of four Hundred dollars
and have you then there this writ

Witness Archibald Gamble Clerk of our said circuit court
at office this thirtieth day of January in the year of
our Lord one thousand Eight Hundred and thirty two Archibald Gamble Clerk

Executed this writ by reading it and the declaration
to Jonathan Duncan in the city of St Louis on
the 10th day of March 1832

John K Walker Sheriff
by J. Brotherton Dep Shffservice $1.00

No 29 March Term 1832
St Louis Circuit Court

Colman Duncan to use
of & C.
vs
Jonathan Duncan

Covenant on writing obligatory & 400. Issue summons.

J. Spalding
attyFiled 30th January 1832 Archibald Gamble clerk.

Jonathan Duncan

Colman Duncan who sues
for the case of James B Thomas

Andsaid defendant
comes & defends the wrong
& injury when to and
says said Plaintiff ought not to have & maintain
his said action against him because he says
that said supposed writing obligatory declared
said plaintiff was obtained by said
Plaintiff from said defendants by the fraud
misrepresentation & of said
plaintiff others in collusion with him and this
said defendant is read to verify wherefore
said defendant prays judgement to

St & H R Gamble
attis for Defte

In a far further plea in this behalf said
defendant says Sandy plaintiff ought not to
have & maintain his said author agaisnt him
because he says - that heretofore to wit on
the twenty second day of April AD 1830
at Galina in the State of Illinois are
Gilbert a Black Man
was legally made free by a bid
of Emancipation & said defendant further
says that said plaintiff
knowing said Gilbert to befree as aforesaid
at St Louis aforesaid on the day of
Said Supposed writing obligatory unlawfully
seige Said & then & there sell said
Gilbert to said defendant as a slave
well knowing said Gilbert to be a free man
and Said defendant did then & there in
consideration of Said Sale of Said Gilbert
be made as aforesaid & for no other -
considerations whatsoever make & deliver to said
plantiff Said Supposed writing obligatory declared on
& this the defendant is ready to verify wherefore
he prays Judgment &c

Bria & Gamble attrs for
Deft

And for further plea in this behalf said
defendant says said plaintiff ought not to have
& maintain his said action against him because
he says that said supposed writing obligatory declared on was
made & offered delivered by said defendant to said
plaintiff for & in consideration of the sale of a free
man as a slave made by said plaintiff to said
defendant & for no other consideration whatsoever -
to wit at the time & plan of expecting Said Supposed writing
obligatory and said defendant further says that
said plaintiff at the time of making the sale of
said free man as a slave as aforesaid
that said man which he sold as a
slave as aforesaid was a free man & this
the said defendant is ready to verify wherefore
he prays Judgement to

Bud & Gamble Attys for
Deft

And for further plea in this behalf the said
Defendant says said plaintiff ought not to have
& maintain his said action against him because
he says that at the time of the making & delivering
said Supposed writing obligatory said plaintiff had
possession of one Gilbert a free man claiming him
as his slave & fullknowing said Gilbert to be
a free man he proposed to sell said Gilbert to
said defendant as a slave & said Gilbert to said
defendant as a
said Defendant could pay

And for further plea in this behalf said plaintiff
Defendant Says said Plaintiff ought not to have
& maintain his said action against him because
he says that at the time of executing said
supposed writing obligatory said plaintiff had
illegally seized & possessed himself of a free man
by the name of Gilbert which he claimed
as his slave small knowing said Gilbert to be
a free man & the said plaintiff then & there
agreed with the defendant that if he would
pay said defendant plaintiff one hundred Dollars
& if said Defendant & said Gilbert would
to him then joint obligation for three
hundred Dollars payable on the conditions & at
the times specified in said supposed writing
obligatory declared on that then said plaintiff
would sell & deliver said Gilbert to said defendant
as a slave & make & deliver to said defendant
a loadcarrying said Gilbert as a slave
and said plaintiff defendant says that he did
then & there pay to said plaintiff one hundred
dollars & he & said Gilbert did then & there
sign seal & deliver to said plaintiff said supposed
writing obligatory declared on and said
plaintiff did then & there sell & deliver to said
defendant said Gilbert as a Slave & to
said defendant a by which he declared
that he thereby sold & delivered to said defendant
said Gilbert as a slave and said defendant
says that at the time said plaintiff sold said
Gilbert as a slave as aforesaid said Gilbert
was a free man & said plaintiff will
and said defendant avers that
that said one hundred dollars was paid &
said supposed writing obligatory declared an
as aforesaid in consideration of the
said sale of said Gilbert as a slave made
as aforesaid & for no other consideration
& this defendant is ready to certify wherefore
he prays Judgment

Bud & Gamble Attys
for Dft

No26March Term 1831

Jonathan Duncan
adsm
Colman Duncan
for Thomas

onepleaoffraud
& 3 of of
Consideration

Bird & Gamble
Defts attysFiled 31st March 1832 Archibald Gamble Clerk

No 29 March Term 1831
St Louis Circuit Court

Colman Duncan use of
Thomas
vs
Jonathan Duncan

of 1st plea & spe-
cial replication to 2nd 3rd
& 4th pleas

J. Spalding
attyFiled 9th. April 1832 Archibald Gamble clerk

St. Louis Circuit Court
March Term 1832

and
of
vs.

And as to the plea of the said
defendant first above pleaded said plaintiff saith that he
aught not for any thing therein contained to the from
having and maintaining his aforeaid action thereof
against him because he says, that said writing obligatory
in said declaration mentioned was obtained fairly and
honestly by him said plaintiff from said defendant &
not by him said plaintiff and others in collusion with
him by fraud misrepresentation and inmanner
andform as the said defendant hath in said plea
alleged and this heprays may be inquired of by the country &c.

And as to the plea of said defendant secondly
above pleadedsaid plaintiff says that he ought not thereby
tobe barred from having &maintaininghis said action
against him because he says that the said Gilbert had
always claimed & had always him actually held in bondage
as a slave until at land aftersaidsale: and that at the date of the sale of
him mentioned in said plea, he said plaintiff then claiming
& having possesion of said Gilbert as a slave, and said
Gilbert then claiming his freedom, the said defendant proposed
topurchase from said plaintiff his controverted right
& interest in said Gilbert : Whereupon said plaintiff did as he
had lawfully a right to do, sell such right and interest as
he had in said Gilbert to said defendant, for the
of the making saiddue declaration; and this he is
ready to verify: wherefore hepraysjudgement & his damages
&c.

Andon to the plea of said defendant thereby above
pleaded said plaintiff says that said due declaration was
made & executed in consideration of the sale by him
said plaintiff to said defendant of Gilbert a black man
such right and interest as he said plaintiff in said

Gilbert mentioned in the declaration, a black man, who
had always, until at and after said sale been claimed
as a slave and actually held in bondage as a slave
and said plaintiff saith that at the time of said sale he said
plaintiff there so claiming & possessing said Gilbert , the said defendant
offered to purchase said plaintiffs controverted right &
interest in said Gilbert , for the purpose of securing the
freedom of said Gilbert , who claimed then & before to be en-
titled to his freedom: and that thereupon said plaintiff
sold to said defendant all his right and interest in
said Gilbert as he lawfully might do: & this he is
ready to verify; wherefore he prays judgment & c.

And as to the plea of said defendant fourthly
above pleaded said plaintiff saith that said Gilbert in
the plea mentioned who was a black man had always been claimed as a slave
and had always been actually held in bondage as a slave
until at and after the sale of all plaintiffs right in him
as herein stated: and that the said plaintiff at the time of
said sale, claiming & possessing said Gilbert as his slave, and the
said Gilbert then claiming to be entitled to his freedom,
he the said defendant then & there, to wit at the time of
said sale, at said County of St. Louis , offered to purchase
from the said plaintiff, his said plaintiffs, controverted
interest in said Gilbert ; whereupon said plaintiff
in of a hundred dollars and of the ma-
king of said did declaration, did sell & transfer to
said defendant, the purpose of securing the freedom
of said Gilbert , all such right and interest as he
said plaintiff had in said Gilbert as he lawfully
might do. And this he is ready to verify, wherefore
he pray, judgement &c.

J Spalding
atty for plff

adsm
for
the use of

And Said defendant comes
and says said plaintiff ought
not to have & maintain his said action against said
defendant by reason of any thing by said plaintiff in
his replication to said defendants second plea -
alledged became he says said plaintiffs replication
to that plea & the matters & things therein contained
are not sufficient in law to enable said plaintiff
to have & maintain his said action and is no
& sufficientanswer to defendants Second plea and theretofore
wherefore Defendant prays Judgement to
and to the Replication of Plaintiff
to defendants third plea said defendant
says said Replication is not a good and
sufficientanswer in law to that plea & the
defendant is not bound by the law of
the land to answer the same where fore
defendant prays judgment to

And for Replication to as as to the plaintiffs
Replication to defendants further plea said
defendant says that Said Replication & the
matters & things thereon alledged are not sufficient
in law to prevent the said plaintiff from being
barred & precluded from having & maintaining
his said action & defendant is not bound
by law to assure the same

Book 6 page 3&4

H R Gamble Spalding G A Bird Defts attyfiled April 30 1832A G Clk

No 29

Jonathan Duncan
adsm
Colman Duncan for
use of Thomas

to Plffs
to 2nd

Filed april 30th
1832 A Gamble clk

St Louis Circuit Court
March Term 1832

use of

vs.

And the said plaintiff
by his attorney, says that the replication to the second
plea above & the matters therein contained are
sufficient in law for him said plaintiff to have
& maintain his said action against the defendant
in respect thereof wherefore he prays judgement & his
damages & c.

And said plaintiff says that his said replication
to the plea of said defendant by him thirdly above
pleaded & the matters therein contained are sufficient
in law for him said plaintiff to have & maintain
his said action thereof against said defendant
wherefore he prays judgnment & c.

And as to his (said plaintiffs) replication to
the defendants fourth plea above, said plaintiff
says that the same replication & the
matters therein contained in manner & form as
therein set forth are sufficient in law for him
said plaintiff to have & maintain his aforesaid
action against said defendant wherefore
he prays judgment & C.

J Spalding
atty for plfffiled May 4th 1832A G clk

Discontinued Book 3 page 426

Archd Gamble clerk

$12 fees paid on 23rd March 1833
by S. Thomas

No 29 March Term 1832
St. Louis Circuit Court

Colman Duncan use
of Thomas
vs.
Jonathan

in

J Spalding
attyfiled may 4th 1832A G clk