USA > Illinois > St Clair County > Cahokia > Cahokia records, 1778-1790 > Part 27
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68
The defendant answers that if he gave his child to the defend- ant's wife, it was only because of her earnest request to take the child, saying that the last service she could render its mother was to bring up her child; and she said that it would cost him nothing; and yet he said that it was not his intention to leave his child at the plaintiff's without satisfying those who took care of it.
The Court condemned the defendant to pay six hundred pounds of flour for the six months that his child was at the plaintiff's and to pay the costs.
MARIE DURAND, Plaintiff, vs. FR. ARNOUX, Defendant.
The plaintiff sues the defendant, saying that he had engaged the defendant to go to the Illinois river in return for a horse, which he gave him upon his return; but that he had received one, with which he was content, at the Illinois River; and that after he had said to the named Laforce, who was commissioned to conduct the trade for the plaintiff, that if he wished to trade for a horse, which the savages had brought them, that he would trade it with Durand and get something to boot, the said horse had been bought by the said Laforce in conse- quence; and afterwards the latter had ordered the said François to go and tie it with withes and return immediately to the canoe and to his business; and that during this time the said horse had been stolen by the savages; and he demands that he be paid for the horse either by the said François or Laforce.
The defendant answers that as a matter of fact he had said to the named Laforce that he would exchange the said horse with
I56
ILLINOIS HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS
mais que Comme durant ny Etoit point il nont fait auq'un Echange Sertin Et quil avoit a Cet Effets Executer Les ordre dudt Laforce, quil avoit misle dt cheval ou il luy avoit Eté ordonné Et quapres Etre revenu au Canot ledt Cheval auroit eté repris par les Sauvages Suivant Comme il paroit puisquil na pas pu le retrouver Et dit quil ne pouvoit pas En repondre ayant fait Ce qu'on luy avoit ordonné.
La Cour a Condanné ledt demendeur a payer au deffendeur un Cheval tel quil Est Convenu Sauf avoir Son recour sur ledt Laforce Si il a manqué a ce quil Etoit obligé de faire En Sa place Et a payer Les fraix.
fr. saucier, Greffier
pierre quenel
a une Cour du 4 septbre 1783.
Président pierre Quenel
Louis lebrun
francois Courié
Josh Lapancé
ant. Lamarche Prest
une représentation fait a la cour par Mons. trottier disans que Sur les deffences qui ont Été faitte par la ditte Cour de traitter de leau de vie au Sauvages dans le village sous peines de Confisca- tion, Et quayant Su par des plainte qu'on luy a porté que Mr Isaac Levy a fait fait [sic] traitter dans le village Et enivré tous Les Sauvages il auroit fait Saisir un tierson de tafia ches mr Levy, Et Comme il n'en a fait auq'un usage, il demande a laditte Cour ce quelle ordonnera a ce Sujet La Cour a authorizé Mr trottier a faire Ce quil jugera a propôs a Ce Sujet vue quil n'a fait quex- ecuter Les deffence qui ont Été fait pour Ce Sujet.
La Cour Est ajourné a Jeudy 2e 8bre.
f. saucier Greffier
pierre quenel
a une Cour du 29 Janvier 1784.
Presidt J. Bte Lacroix
Jh Lapancé
Joh Belfeuil J Bte Dehay
Louis lebrun Present.
une requette présenté par mª ant Girardin demandant que Chaque habitant fasse chaq'un Leur cloture Des terre quils ont
1 I have found no explanation for the cessation of the meetings of the court between September and January. President Quenel died during this period.
I57
COURT RECORD, SEPTEMBER, 1783
Durand, if he wished it, but as Durand was not there, they have not made any certain trade; and that he had in these matters executed the orders of the said Laforce, and had put the said horse, where he was ordered; and after he returned to the canoe, the said horse had been retaken by the savages, as it appeared, since he could not find it; and he said that he could not be held responsible, since he had done what they ordered.
The Court condemned the said plaintiff to pay the defendant a horse, such as he had agreed to give, reserving to him recourse against the said Laforce, if he has failed in what he was bound to do in his place; and to pay the costs.
Fr. Saucier, Clerk.
Pierre Quenel.
At a Court, September 4, 1783.
President, Pierre Quenel.
Louis Lebrun.
François Courier.
Jos. Lapancé.
Ant. Lamarche.
Present.
A report made to the Court by M. Trottier, in which he says that on account of the prohibitions which were made by the said Court in regard to trading in liquors with the savages in the vil- lage under pain of confiscation, and because he had learned from complaints made to him that M. Isaac Levy was carrying on trade in the village and intoxicating all the savages, he had caused the seizure of a cask of tafia at the house of M. Levy; and as he has made no other use of it, he asked the said Court what it will decree on this subject. The Court authorized M. Trottier to do what he shall judge best in this matter seeing that he had only put into execution the prohibition which had been made.
The Court adjourned to Thursday, October 2.
F. Saucier, Clerk.
Pierre Quenel.
At a Court, January 29, 1784.1
President, J. Bte LaCroix.
J. Lapancé.
Jos. Bellefeuil.
Jean Bte. Deshayes.
Louis Lebrun. Present.
A petition presented by M. Ant. Girardin, in which he prays that each inhabitant should make his own fence along the front of the land which he has taken up in Prairie du Pont, and that the
I58
ILLINOIS HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS
pris dans la prairie du ponds Et chaq'un Sur La deventure a leur terre Et que la Cour aye a ordonné auxdts habitant un tems fixe pour ladtte cloture Et que les vielle Cloture du cul de Sac Se releve pour Etre transporté au bout des autres.
La Cour a ordonné que chaque habitant qui ont pris des terres dans La prairie du pond y fasse Leur Cloture dicy a la fin d'avril, Et Quetant qu'au trensport des vielle Cloture il En cera decidé par la pluralité des voix des habitant qui ont des terres dans le cul de Sac pour Eviter toutte dificulté.
La Cour Est ajourné a Jeudy 5 de fevrier 1784.
a une Cour du I avril, 1784. -
Presdt J. Bte Lacroix
Louis lebrun
fr. Courrié
Jh Lapancé
ant Lamarche
Jh Belfeuil
J. Bte Dehay
Present
La Etant assemblé pour prendre le Serment de fidelité ainsi que celuy d'huissier de la Cour. de Gaspar Marchand.
Gaspar Marchand ayant paru a preté Serment de fidelté ainsi que Celuy Dhuissié de la Cour.
Demendeur Bte DUMAY Deffendeur PIERRE MALET
Le demendeur fait Sa représentation a la cour Contre Le Deffendeur disant qu'en vertu d'une santance rendu le 5 de Juin Dernier Contre ledt Deffendeur au Sujet d'un Cheval quil a Eté ConDanné par Laditte Sentance a Luy rendre Et quaprés il auroit Changé pour une vache, mais quil y a quelque Jour que ledt Deffendeur Est venu ches Luy prendre Laditte vache malgré Luy Et la mené ches Thomas Brady.
La Cour a ordonné que la vache du demendeur Soyt par Le demendeur remené a l'endroit ou Elle a Eté prise, Sous vingt quatre heurs Et Condanné a payé tout fray Depend domage Et interet, Et En outre Laditte vache Sur Ses risques Jusqua ce quelle Soit remiser.
Demandeur J. Bte GAFFÉ Deffendeur TH. BRADY
a une même Cour Le demendeur poursuit Le deffendeur disant, quil auroit a la demende dudt deffendeur Lessé son cheval
1 See supra p. 152, note I.
159
COURT RECORD, APRIL, 1784
Court should fix for the said inhabitants a limit of time to make the said fence; and that the old fence of the cul de sac be taken up and moved to the end of the others.
The Court decreed that each inhabitant, who has taken up land in the Prairie du Pont, should build his fence there between now and the end of April; and, in order to avoid all difficulties, that it shall be decided by the plurality of the votes of the inhabi- tants, who have land in the cul de sac, in regard to removing the old fence.1
The Court adjourned to Thursday, February 5, 1784.
At a Court, April 1, 1784.
President, Jean Bte. LaCroix. Louis Lebrun.
Fr. Courier.
Jos. Lapancé.
Ant. Lamarche. J. Bellefeuil.
Jean Bte. Deshayes. Present.
The Court assembled to receive the oath of fidelity and also that of huissier of the Court from Gaspard Marchand.
Gaspard Marchand appeared and took the oath of fidelity and also that of huissier of the Court.
BTE. DUMAY, Plaintiff, vs. PIERRE MALLET, Defendant.
The plaintiff makes his representation to the Court against the defendant, in which he says that, by virtue of a decree rendered the 5th of June last against the said defendant, he had been condemned to deliver to the plaintiff a horse, which after- wards the latter had exchanged for a cow; but that a few days ago the said defendant came to his house and took the said cow in spite of him and had led it to Thomas Brady's.
The Court decreed that the plaintiff's cow be brought back within twenty-four hours by the defendant to the place from which he had taken it; and condemned him to pay all costs, expenses, damages and interest; and furthermore that he should be respon- sible for the cow until it was returned.
J. BTE. GAFFÉ, Plaintiff, vs. THOMAS BRADY, Defendant.
At the same Court the plaintiff sues the defendant, saying that he had, at the request of the said defendant, left his horse in the latter's care at his house, on condition that he would take
160
ILLINOIS HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS
pour en prendre soin ches Luy Sous Les Condition quil prendroit trois voyage de foin dans La Grange de Bte Saucier. Et quapres 40 ou 45 Jour il Luy auroit rendu son dt Cheval disant quil n'avoit plus de foin. En Consequence Le demendeur représente quil nest pas possible quen ci peu de tems Son cheval aye pue menger tout Ce foin Et quen outre, il auroit Eté deja arbitrer pour Cette affaire par les Sieurs J. Bte Lacroix pascal Pillet Henry Biron Et Joseph Bissonette ou ledt deffendeur naurait pas voulu paroitre que Dans les deux voyage de foin que ledt deffendeur avoit Enlevé il En pouvoit avoir le moin trois Edemy [sic] par le tems quil a Eté Dans La grande Et vue La differance quil y a venant des champs.
Le deffendeur ne repond autre Chose Sinon quil Luy Soit per- mis de nomer Des arbitres ainsi que sa partie adverse pour decider Leur Differanc. La Cour a accordé a sa demende Et ardonné [sic] que Celuy qui perderoit par Larbitrage payeroit Les fraix de Justice.
La Cour Est ajourné au 6 de may prochain.
fr saucier Greffier
J B H LaCroix
a une Cour du 13ie avril 1784 Par Extraordinaire.
Président J Bte Lacroix Louis lebrun
ant Lamarche Joh Lapancé
J Bte Dehay
Jh Belfeuil
Presente
une requette représenté par philipe Gervais disant qu'au nom Et Comme Subrogé tuteur de leon lepage il demende quil soit nomé une personne pour faire Le recouvrement de L'encan présentement Echu.
La Cour a ordonné quil soit fait une assemblé de parans Et damis pour le Contenue En La ditte requette.
1 The method of arbitration for ending litigation was very common under French law, and frequent examples of the procedure occur in the Record. The great majority of civil suits might be arbitrated, exceptions being such as the spiritual rights of benefices, the status of persons, validity of marriages, etc. It was required that both parties agree to submit their dispute to arbitrators, who were obliged to render their decision within a determined time. One or more persons were chosen by the parties to act in this capacity. These were empowered, if the number of arbitrators was even, to choose another All free males of sound mind and of age might act, but judges in whose court the suit was pending were debarred. As far as the persons of the litigants and the question in dispute were con- cerned the arbitrators had the same powers as judges; but they could not constrain witnesses to appear before them. They might base their decision on other considerations than exact
I61
COURT RECORD, APRIL, 1784
three loads of hay in Bte. Saucier's barn; and that after 40 or 45 days he had brought the horse back to him, saying that he had no more hay. Accordingly the plaintiff shows that it is impossible that his horse could have eaten in so short a time all that hay; and furthermore that this cause would have been already arbitrated by MM. J. Bte. LaCroix, Pascal Pillet, Henry Biron and Joseph Bissonette, if the defendant had not been unwilling to appear. Furthermore he says that the defendant could have taken three and a half loads of hay in the two load- ings, judging by the time it had been in the barn and considering the difference there is between such and that coming from the fields.
The defendant makes no other answer than to request that he be permitted to name arbitrators, as well as his opponent, to decide their difference. The Court granted his request and ordered that the one losing by arbitration should pay the costs of justice.1
The Court adjourned to the 6th of May next.
Fr. Saucier, Clerk. J. B. H. LaCroix.
At a special session of the Court, April 13, 1784.
President, J. Bte. LaCroix. Louis Lebrun.
Ant. Lamarche. Jos. Lapancé.
J. Bte. Deshayes.
Jos. Bellefeuil.
Present.
A petition presented by Philippe Gervais, in which he says that in the name and as surrogate guardian of Leon Lepage he prays that there be named some one to make recovery of the notes given at the auction, now due.2
The Court ordered that there be held an assembly of relatives and friends to decide on what is contained in this petition.
justice. They might, also, make either of the litigants take oath and permit their decision to turn thereon, as did the judges. They had no power to put their verdict into execution. Tais was done by the judge who confirmed it. Appeal was permitted to either party, provided he had not signed the verdict. Jousse, Traitte de l'administration de la justice, II., 683 et seq. This method of deciding suits, to which the French were accustomed, was adopted by the British commandants in the Northwest, who were empowered by their government to take charge of both the military and civil matters in their localities .- Howard, Local Constitutional History of the United States, i., 430.
2 It appears to have been the common custom to give credit to the purchasers of goods at auctions.
162
ILLINOIS HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS.
a une même Cour une requette présenté par made veuve Le- page demendant de ce decharge de la tutelle des mineurs Barsa- lous dont Son deffunt marie Etoit Chargé.
La Cour ayant Examiné que les dit mineurs Barsalou nont point de parans plus pres que le Sr ant Boyé Elle Conclu quil Soit Chargé de la ditte tutelle Et que mde Ve Lepage En Soit Dechargé.
a une même Cour une requette présenté par made G Blin demendant quil soit nomé une personne pour Lexecution testa- mentaire de Michel Gaudimcire Dont son deffunt marie Etoit Chargé.
La Cour ayant Examiné quil ny avoit personne plus Cap- able que Mr J Bte Lacroix pour substitué au Lieu et place du def. Sieur Blin, En Consequence Elle la nomé pour laditte Execution.
Demendeur PIERRE ROY Deffendeur Joh LEMBER
Le demendeur poursuit le deffendeur pour un Billet quil luy a Consenty, Sous sa marque fait En pelleterie, mais Comme Ledt deffendeur croyoit Le devoir en argent, il demende au deffendeur de faire Serment que les Effest quil luy a Vendu que Se soye En pelleterie quil Le Luy a vendu Le deffendeur ne voulant pas faire serment a Diminuer moitié Sur ledt Billet. Et Le deffendeur a payer Les fraix.
a une même Cour fr. Saucier porte plainte que Bien Des per- sonne Se refuse a payer Les fraix de Justice, En Consequence il demende a la Cour quil Soit maitre de Ce faire payer par Celuy qui ataquera quelque procés Si il Est plus En Etat de payer ou maitre Dexiger un Cotion Des parties pour repondre Des fraix Et tous Les fraix payer En pelleterie suivant L'encien tarif.
fr. saucier
J B H LaCroix.
1 A note for peltries was worth half as much as one for a similar amount of money. The connection of the oath with the case is not clear, but no proof was needed, since the note was made out for peltries.
163
COURT RECORD, APRIL, 1784
At the same Court a petition presented by Madame Lepage, widow, praying for her discharge from the guardianship of the minors Barsalous, with which her deceased husband had been intrusted.
The Court having inquired and learned that the said minors. Barsalous have no relative closer than M. Ant. Boyer, decided that he be charged with the said guardianship, and that Madame Lepage be discharged.
At the same Court a petition presented by Madame G. Blin praying that there be named some one to put into execution the will of Michel Guadimcire, with which her deceased husband was intrusted.
The Court, after inquiry, decided that there was no person more fitted to be substituted for M. Blin than M. J. Bte. Lacroix, and therefore appointed him to put into execution the said will.
PIERRE ROY, Plaintiff, vs. Jos. LEMBER, Defendant.
The plaintiff sues the defendant for a note to which he has consented over his mark, and which is made out for peltries; but as the defendant [plaintiff ?] believes that the debt is in money, he demands that the defendant make oath that the goods which the plaintiff sold him were sold for peltries. The defendant not wishing to make oath has diminished his note by half.1 The defendant was condemned to pay the costs.
At the same Court Fr. Saucier brings complaint that many persons refuse to pay the costs of justice, and he therefore prays the Court that he be empowered to make the party bringing any suit pay, if he is better able to pay, or be empowered to exact surety from the parties to answer for the costs and that all costs be paid in peltries according to the former rate.2
Fr. Saucier.
J. B. H. LaCroix.
2 The practice of making the most responsible party pay the cost of the suit caused great criticism at Vincennes, but in Cahokia the rule, which commonly prevailed from now on, that the successful litigant pay the costs and be reimbursed by the loser seems to have worked with- out friction, or, at least, did not hinder litigation.
164
ILLINOIS HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS
a une Court du 6ie may 1784.
Président, J. Bte Lacroix
Louis lebrun
fr. Courrié
Josh Lapance
J Bte Dehay
ant. Lamarche
Prest
Demendeur J Bte LACROIX Deffendeur FR. GEROME
Le demendeur poursuit Le deffendeur pour une somme de douze Livres quinze Sols pour sa part d'un tierçon de vin Dont plusieurs autres En ont payé Leur part Et Comme ledt deffend- eur si Est trouvé Le demendeur Demende Egalement sa Code par.
Le deffendeur repond que Si paul poupar ne Lut inviter de Si trouver sans luy dire ce quil luy En couteroit ni même qui devoit Luy En Couter aucune chose. Cest La raison qui Luy fait dire qui ne veut rien payer.
La Court a ordonné que puisque paul poupar Lavoit invité a venir Souper ches mr Lacroix quil tiendray Compte Luy même de la Somme reclamé par Le demendeur, Et le deffendeur a payé Les fraix.
a une même Cour Joseph Billet dt Grolet Demendeur poursuit charle Lefevre deffendeur pour La Somme de Cinquante livres pour saler d'un fournau quil luy a fait.
Le deffendeur repond que le demendur na pas remplis Les Engagement quils avoit Ensemble Et Comme les preuve ne Sont pas présentes, ils demande que leur differends Soit decidé par Des arbitres. La Cour a accordé a leur Demende, Et au perdant a payer tous fraix.
a une même Cour Joseph Cecire poursuit pierre Granmon au Sujet dune petite fille orpheline que prenouvau Luy a Lesser ches luy, sous les Convention verbal de La Garder Jusqu'a ce quelle se produisse, Et que ledt Granmon a retirer de ches Luy.
pierre Granmond ayant Paru a dit que ledt prenouvau luy a lesser un pouvoir de retirer Laditte pettitte fille Si elle netoit pas Bien ches ledt Cecire, Et Soffre a produire Ledt pouvoir Et Les preuve du manuvais traittement quil fesoit a Laditte pettitte fille.
165
COURT RECORD, MAY, 1784
At a Court, May 6, 1784.
President, J. Bte. LaCroix.
Louis Lebrun.
Ant. Lamarche.
Jos. Lapancé.
J. Bte. Deshayes.
Fr. Courier.
Present.
J. BTE. LACROIX, Plaintiff, vs. Fr. GERSOME, Defendant.
The plaintiff sues the defendant for the sum of twelve livres fifteen sols for his share of a cask of wine, for which several others have paid their shares; and, as the said defendant was present, the plaintiff demands an equal share from him.
The defendant answers that if Paul Poupar had not invited him to be present without telling him what it would cost him or even saying that it was going to cost him anything; and that is the reason that he said he would pay nothing.
The Court decreed that, since Paul Poupar had invited the defendant to supper at M. LaCroix's, he shall be held accountable for the sum claimed by the plaintiff. The defendant was con- demned to pay the costs.
At the same Court Joseph Billet called Grolet, plaintiff, sues Charles Lefevre, defendant, for the sum of fifty livres for wages for work on a kiln, which the defendant made for him.
The defendant answers that the plaintiff did not fulfill the agreement, which they had made; and since there are no proofs to present, they pray that their difference be decided by arbitra- tors. The Court granted their prayer and ordered the loser to pay all costs.
At the same Court Joseph Cesirre sues Pierre Grandmont in regard to a little orphan girl whom Prenouvau left at his house, with the verbal agreement that he was to keep her until she could support herself, and whom the said Grandmont has withdrawn from his house.
Pierre Grandmont appeared and said that the said Prenouvau left him the authority to withdraw the said little girl, if she was not well treated at the said Cesirre's, and offers to produce the said authority and the proofs of bad treatment, which the plaintiff gave the little girl.
I66
ILLINOIS HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS
La Cour a ordonné qu'a La Cour prochaine Ledt Granmon produissent ses preuvent [sic] Et aux perdans a payé Les fraix.
La Cour Et ajourné a Jeudy 13ie du Court.
f. saucier Greffier J B H LaCroix a une Cour du 20ie may 1784.
Président J. Bte Lacroix.
Louis lebrun.
fr. Courié.
Josh Lapancé
J. Bte Dehay. ant Lamarche. Prést
par une Nouvelle Ellection pour remplacer Les majistrat cy dessus Nommé a Etté, nommée Les Sieurs J. Bte Lacroix J Bte. Saucier, J Bte Dumay, Joseph Bissonnette Louis Chatel pierre roy, Et Louis pillet.
J Bte Lacroix Bte Saucier Bte Durhay Josh Bissonnette Louis Chatel pierre roy Et Louis pillet ayant parus ont preté Serment de fidelité ainsi que celuy d'office, Et ont pris Leurs place En leurs Qualité de majistrats.
fr. Saucier demende Qu'en vertu de la Saisie quil a optenu Sur Cent vingt Et une livres De Suif Et neuf pot Et painte d'huille, appartenant a Bte Lamarche D'Etre hotorizé a faire vendre lesdts articles pour Etre La Somme Endocé sur son Billet.
La Cour a acordé audt fr. Saucier sa Demande.
La Cour Est ajourné a Jeudy 3ie Juin.
J B H LaCroix.
a une Cour du 3ie Juin 1784.
Président J Bte Lacroix Josh Bissonette
Pierre Roy Bte Saucier
J Bte Dumay
Louis chatel
Présent.
Le Sr John Reeve produit une Sentance arbitrale Entre Luy Et Le ST pierre Lagauterie demandant Quelle Soit approuvé par La Cour Et mis en Execution.
a une même Court Pierre Prevost au nom Et Comme fesant pour Gabriel Cerré poursuit pierre Lafleur dans Sa requette disant Quetant Condanné par Mr Le comdt de St Louis de faire
167
COURT RECORD, MAY, 1784
The Court decreed that at the next Court the said Grandmont should produce his proofs, and the loser was to pay the costs.
The Court adjourned to Thursday, the 13d of the current month.
F. Saucier.
J. B. H. LaCroix. At a Court, May 20, 1784.
President, J. Bte. LaCroix.
Louis Lebrun.
Fr. Courier.
Jos. Lapancé.
J. Bte. Deshayes.
Ant. Lamarche.
Present.
To replace the magistrates above named there have been elected by a new election MM. J. Bte. LaCroix, J. Bte. Saucier, J. Bte. Dumay, Joseph Bissonnette, Louis Chatel, Pierre Roy and Louis Pillet.
J. B. LaCroix, Bte. Saucier, Bte. Dumay, Jos. Bissonnette, Louis Chatel, Pierre Roy and Louis Pillet appeared and took oath of fidelity and also that of office and have taken their place as magistrates.
Fr. Saucier prays that, in virtue of the seizure, which he has obtained, of one hundred and twenty-one pounds of tallow and nine pots and a pint of oil, belonging to Bte. Lamarche, he be authorized to have the said articles sold to obtain the sum endorsed on his bill.
The Court granted Fr. Saucier his prayer.
The Court adjourned to Thursday, June 3.
J. B. H. LaCroix. At a Court, June 3, 1784.
President J. Bte. LaCroix.
Jos. Bissonnette.
Pierre Roy. Bte. Saucier.
J. Bte. Dumay. Louis Chatel.
Present.
M. John Reeve produces a decree by arbitration between him- self and M. Pierre Lagauterie and prays that it be approved by the Court and put into execution.
At the same Court Pierre Prevost, in the name of and as acting for Gabriel Cerré, sues Pierre Lafleur in his petition, in which he says that he [the plaintiff] had been condemned by the comman-
I68
ILLINOIS HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS
racomoder une voiture appartenant au Sr Ducharme Quil avoit pris dans La rivierre des Illinois Et Sans ordre, ou La payé, Si elle Etoit or d Etat de l'Etre mais Quetant venu pour le faire Et nayant pas trouvé Laditte voiture, et ayant Sur que Cetoit ledt Lafleur qui Lavoit prise pour charoyé de la pierre pareillement Sans ordre de personne demande ledt Prevost que ledt Lafleur soit Condanner a racommoder ladte voiture ou La payé Si elle Est or d Etat de l'etre, Et a tous depens.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.