COURT: Shanks vs. Shepherd, 1811, Bullitt Co., KY

**********************************************************************
USGENWEB ARCHIVES NOTICE:  These electronic pages may NOT be reproduced in
any format for profit or presentation by any other organization or
persons.  Persons or organizations desiring to use this material,
must obtain the written consent of the contributor, or the legal
representative of the submitter, and contact the listed USGenWeb
archivist with proof of this consent. The submitter has given permission
to the USGenWeb Archives to store the file permanently for free access.
http://www.usgwarchives.net

Transcribed by:  Maria Troutman (RiaTroutman@aol.com)
***********************************************************************

Shanks vs. Shepherd
James SHANKS vs.  Adam SHEPHERD
Decrees # 20
(v.14)

Answer of Adam SHEPHERD to the Interrogation of James SHANKS in his 
answer to a bill, etc.. 9 Mar. 1811.

This respondent answering says that he does not know whether all of 
the services and charges in the acct. Marked A were done and performed 
by Deft.For Compt. But thinks all were not.  Some of them he admits 
were but if the whole were done and performed they were settled for 
by this Res. With the Deft., because Yr. Res. Has since filing the 
original bill in this case found an order drawn on this Res. By the 
Deft. In favor of Tobias WILHOIT for 2 bushels of salt, dated April 
12, 1804 which order is filed and made part of this answer - - Also 
an order dated 1 July 1803 drawn by this Res in favor of Deft on 
Jonathon IRONS for 3 or more bushels of salt which order was paid up 
y said IRONS for 3 bushels of salt to Walter HARRIS for the Deft., 
which order is also made part of this answer - - also an account
of sd SHANKS for 6 pounds 17 shillings and 3 pence and a settlement of 
an account in the handwriting of SHANKS wherein there is a balance due 
this respondent of L 12.16.6 which account & settlement are also made 
part of this answer & which amounts to L22.13.9  (my note, the L next 
to numbers is the pound money sign)

This respondent also states that the deft has had of this respondent a
connected plat of the land from Joseph BROOKS to Wilson’s Creek for which
friendship this respondent conceived the deft ought to do some friendly act
in return.  And this respondent always conceived that he had overpaid the
deft for his services - - He also states that the deft had several lots of
land in Shepherdsville of this respondent, the price for which was intended
by this respondent to go in discharge of the deft accounts against this
respondent and in fact whenever the deft performed any trips for this
repondent he rendered his accounts and they were settled - - and your
respondent prays as in his original bill etc.

						Adam SHEPHERD

Replication of James SHANKS to the answer of Adam SHEPHERD to the
Interrogation stated by the said SHANKS in his answer to the said
SHEPHERD’s bill, etc.
This repliant states that his amts marked A against said SHEPHERD are just
and he called upon to answer and say whether or not he, the compt and this
repliant did make a final settlement on the 4th day of Nov. 1797 and if the
Compt was not, on such settlement, indebted to this repliant the sum of $25
as charged in the sd.amt... did not this repliant lend to the compt’s wife
$8 to pay Nancy BRASHEAR on the 14th day of Nov. 1797.. was there not a
settlement made between the Compt and this repliant on the 16th day of
March 1798 for this repliant’s voyage to Cumberland for the Compt and a
bal. Due therefor to this repliant of $38.9 ½ . . . Was there not a
settlement between the Compt and this repliant on the 11th day of April
1798 of the accts  between the Rep and SHEPHERD & HUBBARD, and was there
not a bal of $ 37.98 ½  due this rep? Did not the compt assume to pay that
bal to this Rep? . . . 

Did not this repl lend the compt  the sum of $5.50 at Michael TROUTMAN’s on
the 25 of Nov. 1798 . . .

Did not the compt owe Nathaniel OVERALL for work on a house in
Shepherdsville?  Did not sd. OVERALL owe SHEPHERD & HUBBARD the sum of $27
for goods to be paid for by sd work? Was not this repl collector for
SHEPHERD & HUBBARD?  Did not the comt request this repl to charge the sd
$27 to himself and also to charge the same to the compt in the acct then
existing between this repl and compt?  Did not thsi repl do so , and did
not this repl acct with SHEPHERD & HUBBARD for the sd $27?  Did not Dr.
Samuel SMYTHE owe this repl $3.04 as per Exhibit #13?  And did not this
repl refuse to let the plat go out of his office. . . unless teh compt
would be accountable to this repl for the fees due thereon?  Did not he,
compt., assume the payment? Has he, comp., eer paid any part thereof?  Did
not this repl and Michael TROUTMAN hold a paper on Michael JONES, and did
not this repl. Endorse $7.50 thereof to sd. TROUTMAN on the     day of
April 1803 by the request and for the benefit of the Compt?  Did not this
repl pay Walter HARRIS 50 cents at the request of the compt?  Did not this
repl pay John and Jonathon MASDEN $1.50 for the compt for chair carrying?
This repl admits the order on in favor of WILHOIT for 2 bushels of salt,
also the order for 3 bushels of salt paid by IRONS which this repl would
have credited the compt. For in the accts afsd had he, compt., presented
them and stil offers to credit the same in that way - - he also admits the
amount of goods and articles filed and will credit the same in like manner
at just and fair prices, the prices not being in this repl handwriting but
added by some other person - - as to the fragment of an account for 12
pounds 16 shillings sixpence it is a fraud on the face of it -  it is
unjust and is as this repl believes part of an account stated in the year
of 1795 on a partial settlement had between the cmpt and this repl.  But
this repl denies that it was on a final settlement of all accts then
existing between the Comp and this repl and requires proof....

This repl also call on the compt to cast his eyes on Exhibit No.1 and if
he has any regard for the reputation of himself (and his unoffending
family) let him come forward in the spirit of a true penitent and this
Repliant as a PHILANTHROPIST is willing to forgive him, provided he,
compt., will support his professions of penitence by his upright dealings
hereafter.

This repl calls on the Comp separately, distinctly and with ? to answer the
following interrogatories, to wit:  Did or did not the repl on the 26th day
of Sept in the year 1792 lend to the compt  l doubloon, ½ johannes and 2
guineas . .  did or did not this repl early in the spring of the year 1795
perform the service as stated in this repl’s answer in making WALTON’s
surveys..

Did or did not this repl on the 19th day of the same year (1795) start in
the compt’s boat for New Orleans and did not the repl perform the voyage?
Was not this repl to receive for his services rendered on the sd voyage to
receive of the comp $100? . . Did not the Compt call on this repl in the
same year (1795) after his return from Orleans to go with the Compt.,
Nathaniel HARRIS, adn Thomas G. WOODS in order to lay off 1700 acres of
land for sd. WOOD and 1000 acres for sd. HARRIS which they, the sd. WOOD &
HARRIS, had bought of Mathew WALTON, were not John EVANS

[NOTE: (end of my copy, wish I had more, getting into more names that are 
familiar)]