Territory of Kansas Wyandot County S S In the Third District Court in and for said County and Territory Daniel Powell Plaintiff Amended Answer Moses Grinter Defendant Defence No 1. And now comes the said Moses Grinter defendant in the above entitled cause and defends the wrong injury and for answer to the said plaintiffs petition, and the matters and things therein alleged, the said defendant says he does not owe the said plaintiff said sum of Two Hundred Seventy Five 42/100 Dollars, or any part thereof, in manner and form as the said plaintiff both aleged against the said defendant, and of this he puts himself upon the County. Defence No. 2. And for a further plea in this behalf, and for a further answer to said plaintiffs supposed cause of action, said defendant says that the Book Account, in the S’d plaintiffs petition mentioned did not accrue to said plaintiff at the special instance and request of the said defendant, but at said plaintiffs own instance and request under and by virtue of a special agreement, made between the S’d plaintiff and S’d defendant, on or about the first day of may A. D. 1858, whereby the said plaintiff agrees with the S’d defendant to build for the S’d defendant a [Page 2] Buoy Boat Ferry at a point on the Kansas River known as the Delaware Crossing, to wit at the County and territory aforesaid. The said plaintiff then and there represented to the S’d defendant that he was well skilled in the art of building Buoy Boat Ferries, and S’d plaintiff agreed to furnish all material necessary for the construction of said Ferry of Buoy Boats , ( Except the Flat Boat otherwise known as a Ferry Boat which the defendant was to furnish) perform all the labor, pay all the expenses of boarding the hands employed in the building of said Ferry of Buoy Boats, and in putting the same in good running order, said work was to be done in a good workmanlike manner and was warranted to be available to said defendant as a Ferry, said Ferry Buoy Boats were to be made of good price lumber well corked then pitched with two coats of good pitch then painted with two coats of good paint, and to be water tight and not to cost S’d dependant over $400. Defendant argues that he duely performed all and singular the conditions aforesaid on his part. But the said plaintiff disregarding his agreement did not nor has he performed all and singular the conditions aforesaid on his part Towit; he did not nor has he constructed and built said Buoy Boats and all other things [Page 3] necessary for running of said Ferry of Buoy Boats, attach them to said Ferry Boat and make the same available to S’d defendant as a Ferry. Plaintiff did not nor would he build said Buoy Boats, and cork them well, and pitch them well with two coats of good pitch, and paint them with two coats of paint, and make them water tight, And he so unskillfully badly, and negligently constructed said Buoy Boats that during the night time S’d buoy boats would sink and were of no avail. Said plaintiff did not nor would he put said Ferry of Buoy Boats into operation so as to make the same available to S’d defendant, as a Ferry and said Buoy Boats are wholly incomplete and unfinished By reason whereof and by failure of said plaintiff to fulfill his agreement as aforesaid the said defendant incured and sustained damages to a large amount of money as follows. Towit: The sum of Three Hundred Dollars ($300). Defence No. 3 And for a further plea in this behalf, and for further answer to said plaintiffs supposed cause of action The said defendant says that in consideration that the said plaintiff [Page 4] was unable to defray all the expenses of building said Ferry the said defendant then and there at the special instance and request of the said plaintiff agreed to advance to and for said plaintiff a certain amount of money in paying of the Bills of expenses incured by said plaintiff from time to time, that the said plaintiff might be enabled to prosecute his said work of building said Ferry to competition. By reason whereof, and, by failure of the said plaintiff to fulfill his agreement as aforesaid with the said defendant said defendant incured and sustained damages in a large amount of money Towit; in the sum of Five Hundred Ninety Seven Dollars 41/100 ($597.41/100) for so much money lent and advanced by said defendant to said plaintiff, and paid laid out and expended to and for the use of said plaintiff by said defendant. A copy of which said account of expenditures is hereto attached marked “D” said defendant therefore pray that the said several sums of money herein before mentioned as his damages sustained in the promises amounting to Eight hundred Ninety Seven 41/100 Dollars [Page 5] as his damages sustained in the promises may become a judgment against said plaintiff and in favor of said defendant and all other damages sustained by said defendant in the promises, including costs of this action. J. Stillwell Stockton Defendants Atty Territory of Kansas Wyandott County SS Moses Grinter Being first duely sworn says that the statement of facts set out in the above Amended answer is true as he [?] believes Moses Grinter Subscribed in my presence and sworn to before me by the said Moses Grinter this 5th day of August AD 1859 Chas S Glick Noty Public [Page 6] Account filed with Amended Answer Daniel Powell to Moses Grinter 1858 May 15 To Cash paid to Lobermann for Powell $1000 “ 28 “ Paid for Powell on Bill 77.00 “ 29 “ 34.00 June 4 “ 64.00 “ 5 “ Hauling 30.00 “ 9 On Bills 75.00 “ 20 “ Powell 20.00 “ 27 “ Hired Hands 1.50 “ 3 “ Tobacco to hands 2.85 “ 20 “ 52 yds Debaize 12.26 May 23 “ Paid for hauling 5.00 June 4 “ [?] 98.95 “ “ 1 [?] Rake 17.85 “ 20 “ Furnish Materials 25.00 May 22 “ Paid Mrs Munndays “ “ Board Bill 12.00 “ “ 3 weeks Board for men Self 3 weeks 22.00 $597.41 [Page 7] Daniel Powell vs Moses Grinter Amended Answer Filed August 15. 1859. James Alenuse Clerk Stillwell Stockton Defendants Atty.