John Baptise Guadaire v. John Baptise Carron
Item
John Baptise Guadaire V. John Baptise Carron. 1824, St. Louis Circuit Court Historical Records Project, accessed October 5, 2026, https://digitalexhibits.library.washu.edu/s/ccr/item/60656
- Case Title
- John Baptise Guadaire v. John Baptise Carron
- Series
- Native Americans
- Fur Trade
- Plaintiff
- Gaudaire, John Baptiste
- Defendant
- Carron, John Baptiste
- Date Filed
- 1824-06-07
- Filing Date
- 1824-06-07
- Defendant’s Attorney
- Pettis, Spencer
- Detondebaratz, Martial
- Court Name
- St. Louis Circuit Court
- Court Term
- 1824-06
- Judge
- Stuart, Alexander
- Clerk
- Gamble, Archibald
- Justice of the Peace
- Ferguson, Peter
- Sheriff
- Walker, John K.
- Sworn Declarant
- Tremble, Toussant
- Cause of Action
- Unjust Enrichment
- Case Notes
- References Missouri River, Grand River, trade with Indians, wages; inventory included; plaintiff also spelled Godaire; debt for service as a boat hand.
- Case Number
- 17
- Identifier
- ccr1824.01028.038
- Source
- Missouri State Archives - St. Louis
- Rights
- Public Domain
- PDF Download
- Download PDF of all images
- Transcription
-
**John Baptise Guadaire v. John Baptise Carron**
---
**Page 1** (1028_001.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Cover Page*
No. 91 June Term 1824
S B Go daise
[illegible]
S B Ganow
*filed June 7th 1824 [illegible]*
---
**Page 2** (1028_002.jpg)
---
**Page 3** (1028_003.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Exhibit 1 - Defendant's Ledger*
St Louis November 12th 1823
[illegible] Baptiste Gaudaire Bot of
[illegible]
70-- 70---- 70---
-20-- 20.75 23.75
----- -2--- -----
48.25 47.25 46.25
-2--- ----- -----
47.25 ----- -----
Plaintiff whole account as boat hand - \$70[?]
Defendants - acts \$20.75
Deductions 3
23.75
Ballance Due \$45.25
---
**Page 4** (1028_004.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Cover Page*
No. 17 March 1824
[illegible] vs j.B. Canon
Acts — \$55.50 [illegible]
[illegible] [illegible]
1823
14 November
---
**Page 5** (1028_005.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Order of Judgment*
Saint Louis ,28th March 1824 John Baptiste Canon
To John Baptiste Sanders [illegible]
To Services as a boat hand from November 1823 to
March 1824 a trip up the Missouri \$55.50 Cts
---
**Page 6** (1028_006.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Cover Page*
No. 17 March 1824
J.B. vs J.B.Canon Ballance of Acts \$55.50 Cts
---
**Page 7** (1028_007.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Warrant for Defendant's Debt with Justices Fees*
No. 17
Issued 29th March
Reld 29th March
[illegible]
Witnesses
Joseph Belcourt
Bazille Pillette
John Baptiste Gadese
vs
John B Canon
Warrant Debt \$55.50
On an examination of the parties & Witnesses - the account
of defendant for \$20.75 being allowed as just - three dollars
were deducted for improper conduct of the plaintiff & judgement was given
for \$46.25 Cents - appeal entered same day Mdetandebaroty
[illegible]
I Certify the above and foregoing to for a true copy from
for \$65
My docket - Witness my hand & seal thus 4th June 1824
*[illegible] Peter Fergused
Justice of the peace
county St Louis
State of Missouri*
Constables fees
25
---
**Page 8** (1028_008.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Cover Page*
no 17 March 1824
J.B. [illegible] vs J.B. Canon
Transcript of proceedings
Justices fees - $ 1.33%
Constable 25
---
**Page 9** (1028_009.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Affidavit of Plaintiff John B. Gaudaire*
State Of Missouri ,
County of St. Louis , township of St. Louis , Ss.
Before me Peter Ferguson , one of the justices of the peace, in and for the county and
township aforesaid, personally appeared John B . Gaudeers, who claims
against John B Carron the sum of Fifty five dollars 50 cents
on Account; and being sworn according to law, maketh oath, declareth and sayeth, that he has reason
to believe that the defendant is about to abscond or move out of the township, and that he is in danger of losing
his debt. St. Louis , this 29th day of March, in the year one thousand eight hundred
and 24
John B . Goodeers
Sworn to and signed before me the undersigned, a justice of the peace
in and for the county and township aforesaid, date above written.
Peter Ferguson J. P.
No. 17. To the Constable of the township of St. Louis , in the connty of St. Louis :Greeting.
Take John B . Carron and bring him forthwith before me a justice of
to peace, to answer John Baptiste Goodeers in an action on Ballance of
Acct for the sum of Fifty five dollars 50 Cents
*Given under my hand, this 29th day of March A. D. one thousand eight hundred and 24 . Peter Ferguson Justice of the Peace.*
---
**Page 10** (1028_010.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Cover Page*
No. 17 March 1824
John B . Gaudeers
vs
John B . Carron
[illegible] Debt \$55.50
Justice-Deposition - 8 1/2
oath = 6 1/4
Certifying - 18 3/4
Warrant - 18 3/4
52 3/4
Conastable -
*Body in Custody
S. Blood [illegible]
Service [illegible] 5*
---
**Page 11** (1028_011.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Bond for Appeal*
I Marshal Detondebaratz acknowledge myself to our to John
Baptiste Goodeers the sum of fifty four dollars fifty cents or
whatever sum shall be found to be due to said Goodeers by
John B Canon on an account against said Canon said for
before Peter Ferguson on this day 29th March 1824
St Louis State of Missouri
[illegible] Peter Ferguson
*Mal. Detondebaratz*
---
**Page 12** (1028_012.jpg)
---
**Page 13** (1028_013.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Bond for Appeal*
[illegible] the subscribers acknowledgs to be indebted to John B [illegible]
the plaintiff in the sum of sixty five dollars to the levied upon our
respective Goods and chattles[?] upon this condition that if the Judge
ment of the Justice shall be affermed by the Court or if the plaintiff
shall recover more than the Judgement of the Justice then our
will pay the amount of such Judgement [illegible] - Saint Louis
29 March 1824
Jeste, Peter Ferguson
Justice of the peace
*J B Canon
Mal. Detondebaratz*
---
**Page 14** (1028_014.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Cover Page*
No. 17
March 1824
J.B. Goodeere vs. J B Canon
Bond for appeak[?] \$65
---
**Page 15** (1028_015.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Deposition of Witness Toussant Tremble*
Deposition of witnesses produced sworn and examined on the fifteenth day
of March in the Year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty
five between the hours of Ten o'clock in the forenoon and fouro'clock in
the afternoon of that day at the office of Peter Ferguson in the city of
Saint Louis and state of Missouri before Mr Peter Ferguson a justice of
the peace within & for the County of Saint Louis & State aforesaid in con
formity with a notice for the examination of witnesses in a certain cause
now depending in the Circuit Court for the County of Saint Louis between
John Baptiste Gauders plaintiff and John B . Carron defendant on
the part of the Plaintiff Toussant Tremble. being duly sworn
of the age of Twenty one years and upwards being duly sworn on his
oath deposeth and saith. Question by the Plaintiff. Where is your place of
residence. Answer. in Cahokia in the State of Illinois . Question by same
do you know John Baptiste Gaudeers the Plaintiff in this action. Answer I do
Question. do you know John B Carron the defendant. Answer I do & have known him
for several years. Question. do you know of John B . Gaudeers's having gone up
the Missouri river as a boat hand for John B . Carron and when. Answer
John B Gaudere went up the Missouri & Grand river as a boat hand for
John B Carron in September Eighteen hundred and twenty three. I steered
the boat myself. Question. was J. B. Carron in the boat and did he go
the trip himself. Answer. he did and came back in the boat at the same
time Gauders & the rest of us came back. Question. do you know how much
Mr J. B. Canon was to give Gauders for the trip. Answer. Yes-
Seventy dollars. Question. how do you know that he was to give Gauders
that sum. Answer. I heard J. B. Carron tell J. B. Gauders that he would
give him seventy dollars for the trip. he gave me seventy five steered
the boat. Question did you ever hear Mr Carron say how much he was
to give the other hand for that trip. Answer I did. he said he was to give them
seventy dollars a piece. Question was there a written agreement between
Carron & Gauders. for Gaudere's services in the trip above mentioned. Answer. not that I know of I never saw our. Question. did Gaudeers
perform the trip. Answer. he did he went as for up Grand river as the
rest of us did. Question. did Mr Gauders do his duty as a boat hand during
that trip. Answer. he did. Questions did J. B. Gaudere loose any time on
the Voyage. Answer not that I recollect of. Question did J. B. Gauders
obey the Orders of Mr. Carron during said trip. Answer. he did so far as
I know. Question. was Mr Carron on a trading Voyage with the Indians at
the time Mr Gauders made this trip with him. Answer, he was. Question
as what time did Mr Carron return to St. Louis . Answer some time in March 1824. I do not recollect the day. Question did Mr. Gauders
come in the boat to St. Louis . Answer Mr he stopped at Saint Charles , he
offered Mr Carron another hand in his place but carron said that he
did not want another hand to come to saint Louis. Question. have
you been paid by Mr Carron for the services rendered in the trip referred
---
**Page 16** (1028_016.jpg)
to. Answer. I have. Question. do you know whether Gauders has been
paid by Carron . Answer. No. I do not but I heard Mr Carron say that he
was very willing to pay. Gauders his wages but that he would make him
wait for them. Question. have you any interest in the decision of the suit between Carron & Gauders. Answer No. not any.
Govern to and subsessibed before Mr
on this 15th day of March 1825
Touissant[?] his markX Tremble.
Peter Ferguson
Justice of the Peace
County St. Louis
State of Missouri
Justice fees - taking depositin[?]
600 words --- 37% cts
oath --- [illegible]
certufying[?] --- 25
68 3/[?]
---
**Page 17** (1028_017.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Cover Page*
The Clerk of the Circuit Court
for the County St. Louis
J.B. Gaudeers
vs.
J.B. Carron
Deposition
Ferguson Justice of the Peace
County [illegible] St. Louis
*March 28th 1825 A Gamble clerk*
---
**Page 18** (1028_018.jpg)
---
**Page 19** (1028_019.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Proposed Revisions to Defendant's Bill of Exceptions*
Substantially
The defendant then proved by Martial delaudeboratys, that there
he Knew there was a written agreement between the parties on
the subject matter of this suit; that said written agreement was
signed by both parties, but that he did not Know where it is
the plantiffs counsel moved the court to exclude the testimony
of Martial Delaudeboralys from the jury, and to instruct the jury
that what he (the said witness) had said was not evidence in this
cause, on the ground, that it appeared on the face of the
papers filed in the cause, that the said delaudetaraty is [illegible]
security for the defendant in the appeal bond and therefore
was in competent to testify on the ground of interest in the
suit the court excluded the testimony of delaudeboraty from
the jury, and instructed the jury, to pay no attention to what
witness had said.
The defendent then proved by Spencer Pettis, that on the
trial of the said cause below, there was a written agreem
ent between the said parties among the papers, and
purported to be an agreement for a trip up the river
to the performed by the plaintiff for the defendant
and that said agreement was not [illegible] by either party -
the plaintiff then called Justice Ferguson [illegible] before whom
the cause was tried below, who testified that he was quite cer
tain there was no such written agreement as that testified to
by defendants witnesses between the plaintiff & defendant con
cerning[?] the subject matter of the suit, and that he had
no recollection of having seen any such paper at the
trial before him nor did he [illegible] remember to have
heard any thing said about it at the said trial.
---
**Page 20** (1028_020.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Defendant's Proposed Jury Instructions (Copy)*
Copy of instructions asked by Pettis
The defendants counsel then moved the court to instruct
the jury that there being a written agreement between
the parties proved they must find for the defendant refused
As to what the court then said concerning
the proof of the existence of a written agreement I believe it was that ``the court will not give this instruction - as the proof is very vague''
``The defendants counsel then moved the court to in
struct the jury that if they believe from the evidence
that there is a written agreement between the parties
relation to the subject matter of this suit, they must
find for the defendant.'' (Refused)
And the court then instructed the jury that if they believe
[illegible] the argument courts such as is in writing
and in the [illegible] or power of the plaintiff
they ought to find for the defendant
such were the words of the court according
to my recollection
> *Legal Function: Cover Page*
Godair vs Carron
Corrections to be proposed to depts Bill of exceptions tendered
---
**Page 21** (1028_021.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Defendant's Motion for a New Trial*
J. B. Canon
vs.
J. B. Godeers
Reason for new trial
1. The jury found against [illegible] &
evidenced
2. The court erred in suffering the admitting
the deposition to be read without the
absence of the [illegible] being proved
3. The court erred in not instructing
the jury to find for def[?] where
being is written agreement proved
to have been among the papers at the
[illegible] before the justice
*Pettis*
---
**Page 22** (1028_022.jpg)
---
**Page 23** (1028_023.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Notes of Judge Alexander Stuart*
[illegible] Baptiste [illegible]
vs
John B Cannon
Appeal
Be it remembered that on matter of a Labour
cause the counsel for the plaintiff [illegible] offered
the following depositions (here of set it out)
the reading of which was objected to by the [illegible]
Defendant's counsil because the plaintiffs had not shown him [illegible] to [illegible] & because it did not appear to have
been taken according to the statues and the [illegible]
absence of the witness Defendant at this time was not
proved the court overruled the objections (altho
as evidence or proof was advanced except what appears
from the deposition itself) and suffered the
deposition to be read to the jury without such proof
to which the defendants counsel exactly and
[illegible] this his bill of [illegible]. The Plaintiff
him cloud his case without offering any other
testimony. The defendant that proved by
Mr. Detandebarz[?] that the [illegible] there was a written
agreement between the parties [illegible] or the
subject matter of this suit. That said said
written agreement was signed by both parties
but that he did not know where it is. The court
excluded this testimony on the grounds that witness
was security in the appeal board. The Deft
then proved that on the trial of said cause
below. There was a written agreement between
the said parties [illegible]
concerning the subject matter of this suit
to act relating to a such to be performed by the
said plaintiff for said Deft that such written agreement
was among the [illegible] of this suit and was given
---
**Page 24** (1028_024.jpg)
an evidence [illegible] [illegible] justice and that said
agreement was not denied by either party
altho they were both present. The Plaintiff
then proved by the further that he said [illegible]
having been among the papers at the Trial before him, or of its [illegible]
had no recollection of said written agreement
The defendant, counsel then moved the court
to instruct the jury that there being a written
agreement found between the parties, proved
they must find for the Deft. The court refered
this instruction and said in the presence of
the jury that the proof of said written agreement
was very vague.
the Deft counsel then moved the court to
instruct the jury that that if they believe from
the evidence that there is a written agreement between
the parties does exist relation to the subject
matter of this suit they must find for the
Deft. The court overruled this [illegible]
but instructed the jury that if they believe
that there was a written agreement between the parties for the performance of that trip such in [illegible] [illegible]
the [illegible] on or power of the Plaintiff
they must find for the Deft. To either
decisions instructions of the court the
Deft by this counsel objects and [illegible], this
his bill of exceptions which is signed
by the court.
The Plaintiffs counsel then moved for
a new trial for the following reasons
(now set them [illegible])
Which instruction was overruled by the court
to which [illegible] the Deft [illegible] counsel
[illegible] tendered his bill exceptions.
---
**Page 25** (1028_025.jpg)
which are signed [illegible] sealed
*[illegible]*
---
**Page 26** (1028_026.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Cover Page*
Godair
vs.
Cannon
Bils of En.
*filed May 17th 1825 A Gamble clerk*
---
**Page 27** (1028_027.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Jury Verdict Form*
The Jury paid for the Plaintiff fifty
five dollars and fifty cents.
---
**Page 28** (1028_028.jpg)
---
**Page 29** (1028_029.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Defendant's Motion for a New Trial*
John B Godeers
vs John B Carron
Appeal
The Deft counsel moved this
court to grant a new trial for the
following reasons.
1. The jury found against law
and evidence
2. The court permitted improper
evidence to go to the jury
3. The court misdirected the jury.
*Pettis.*
---
**Page 30** (1028_030.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Cover Page*
Godeers
vs
Carron
Reason
*filed April 25 1820 A Gamble clerk*
---
**Page 31** (1028_031.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Summons of Joseph Belcourt and Bazille Pettitte*
County of St. Louis , sct.
The State Of Missouri , To The Sheriff Of S Louis County-Greeting:
You are hereby commanded to Summon
Joseph Belcourt.
Bazille Pitt
that setting aside all manner of excuse and delay they be and appear in proper person before the Judge
of our circuit Court, of the fourteenth day of at the city of St. Louis ,
then and there to testify and the truty to say in a certain matter of controversy now pending in our said
court, wherein Godeer[?] is plaintiff,
and, Cannon is defendent,
on the part of the plaintiff and have you then there this writ.
*Witness, Archibald Gamble , Clerk of our said Circuit Court , at the
city of St. Louis , this 18th day of October
in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and twenty four A Gamble Clerk, C. C.*
---
**Page 32** (1028_032.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Cover Page*
Oct Term 1824
[illegible] Godeer[?]
vs Cannon
[illegible]
for
Joseph Belcourt.
Bazelle Pittelle[?]
fourthwith for
plaintiff
Executed on Joseph Belacourt Nov 2nd 1824
B. Pittelle[?] not found
[illegible]
Service \$0,50
---
**Page 33** (1028_033.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Summons of Joseph Belcourt*
County of St. Lonis, sct.
The State Of Missouri , To The Sheriff Of St. Louis County-Greeting:
You are hereby commanded to Summon
Joseph Belacourt
that setting aside all manner of excuse and delay he be and appear in proper person before the Judge
of our Circuit Court , on the forthwith day of at the city of St. Louis ,
then and there to testify and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy now pending in our said
court, wherein [illegible] Baptiste Godair is plaintiff,
and Josaph Cannon is defendant,
on the part of the plantiff and have you then there this writ.
*Witness, Archibald Gamble , Clerk of our said Circuit Court , at the
city of St. Louis , this second day of November
in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and twenty four A Gamble Clerk, C. C.*
---
**Page 34** (1028_034.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Cover Page*
executed on Joseph Belacourt Nov 2nd 1824
*[illegible]
Service \$0,50*
Oct [illegible]
Godare[?]
vs Baptiste Cannon
for
Joseph [illegible]
forthwith
[illegible]
---
**Page 35** (1028_035.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Summons of Joseph Belcourt, Bazille Pettitte, and Joseph Trudeau*
County of St. Louis , sct.
The State of Missouri , To The Sheriff Of St Louis County—Greeting
You are hereby commanded to Summon Joseph Belacourt Bazelle ,
Pettelle Joseph Trudeau that setting aside all manner of excuse and delay they be and appear in proper person before the Judge
of our Circuit Court , on the 16th day of February at the city of St. Louis ,
then and there to testify and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy now pending in our said
court, wherein [illegible] B. Godare[?] is [illegible] plaintiff,
and Cannon is defendant,
on the part of the plaintiff and have you then there this writ.
*Witness, Archibald Gamble , Clerk of our said Circuit Court , at
the city of St. Louis , this 30th day of December
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty four A Gamble Clerk, C. C.*
---
**Page 36** (1028_036.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Cover Page*
February Term 1825
[illegible] B Godair vs B. Cannon
for
Joseph Belacourt
Bazelle Pettelle
for
Plaintiff
July 16th
---
**Page 37** (1028_037.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Summons of Joseph Belcourt and Bazille Pettitte*
County of St. Louis , Sct.
The State of Missouri , To The Sheriff Of St Louis County-Greeting:
You are hereby commanded to Summon Joseph Belacourt Bazelle Pettelle
that setting aside all mannerof excuse and delay they be and appar in proper person before the Judge
of our Circuit Court , on the Sixth day of April at the city of St. Louis ,
then and there to testify and the truth to say in a certain matter of controversy now pending in our said
court, wherein [illegible] Godair is plaintiff,
and B Cannon is defendant,
[illegible] the part of the plaintiff and have you then there this writ.
*Witness, Archibald Gamble , Clerk of our said Circuit Court , at
the city of St. Louis , this 23rd day of February
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty five A Gamble Clerk, C. C.*
---
**Page 38** (1028_038.jpg)
> *Legal Function: Return of Service (Witnesses Found) for Joseph Belcourt and Bazille Pettitte*
Further of these
witness found
Walker
[illegible] [illegible] 25
March Term 1825
[illegible] B Godaire[?]
vs. B Cannon
for
Joseph Belacourt Bazelle Pettelle
[illegible]
for plaintiff
April 6th 1823
John Baptise Guadaire V. John Baptise Carron. 1824, St. Louis Circuit Court Historical Records Project, accessed October 5, 2026, https://digitalexhibits.library.washu.edu/s/ccr/item/60656