Viewing page 40 of 255

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

Copys'

Hd. Qurs. Military Commissioner. Counties of Montgomery, Pulaski, Giles.
Christiansburg Va. September 23rd 1867.

Wm. C Charlton Esq.
J.P. for Giles Co. Va.

Sir. In the case of Johnson George "Col'd" Plaintiff and Mrs Mary Peters Defendent, you will please inform these Hd. Quarters, why it was dismissed at Plaintiff's cost, when the account was just and correct, with sworn evidence to establish each item, with the exception of four days hauling which could not be sustained, from the fact, that the contracting party had not been consulted. the son of Mrs. Peters, having been applied to, instead of herself, how the rails were to be hauled; who gave Plaintiff to understand, that Mrs. Peter's team could not, or would not, do the work required. As he swears that he did not act in any way for his mother, and there being no proof that he did, it might possibly be sufficient grounds, for making the deduction in the Bill (although for myself, I fully believe, that if justice was awarded the plaintiff, he would receive the entire amount, and for these reasons! Mrs. Peters has received the full benefit of the Freedman's labor, and use of team provided by himself.) As to the estate being responsible for the debt, this would indeed be the case, was it not proven by reliable sworn witnesses, who Mrs. Peters can not refute, that she herself assumed the debt, after the death of her husband; and further, contracted with the Freedman, for the completion of the work. Under the circumstances I feel compelled to reverse your decision, at least until a full and thorough investigation can be had in the case. Awaiting your reply, I remain Very Respectfully
Your Obt Servant, C S Schaeffer Bvt Capt. & Mil. Com'r. 

Transcription Notes:
very well written