The New York herald., 1869-10-05
IMPORTANT LAWSUIT m ST. LOUIS.
The Chomtcan Estafe--BoUy and lesson versus
Charles r. ChouteRn.

tFrcm the st. Louis Democrat, Oct 81
This case, which is still pending In the Probate
court has attracted considerable attention. We
have already stated the main points In the case. and
now give some additional facts, received from one OF
the parties Interested In the suit:
the facts In this Gaze. as we understood theni as
developed on the trial are as follows:--Mr. Peter
choutean who died n the early part OF September,
and Charles p. Chouteau his executors. Tho
personal property Of the teststor consisted
mostiy or railroad bonds and securities, bearing
interest and which ut the time Of bis death
were In the city OF New York. He was
aso member ~ G oi n lo Tf ~ psr q CeSSoIsso
Tho bonds were brought back from New York
amounting TO $1,000, ,o0o--some time In February.
between MIR. Charles r. Chouteau and nrs
Mofat, the two leyatees OF said Choutean.
In the lrat settlement maue ny tne executors
settlement is now about being made aud Mr.. Charles
p. Choueau one OF the executors, nles his separate
account, IN which he says that there have been no
receipts disbursements since the first settlement.
Bogy and Tesson contend that all the money received
from tho frms OF Chouleau, Harrison 4 Vale ana
irom Peter Chouteau, Jr., Co. should appear In
final settlement The inventory OF Peter Chouteau
Jr Co. amounts to $500 900, and sl6s. 900 was re-
Bogy and lesson contend that one-hal OF the
amount OF the assets OF Peter Chouteau, Jr., Co.
or say t24i 5oo-shouId bc charged 20 them and py
them distributed 70 the heirs. and SO with the
Sl6s 600 received from tbs rm OF Chou.eau, Harri-
son vallo. Then these sums would swell the total
amount In the hands OF tho executors to sl,oliooo
Chare1 p. Chouteau. the other executor, and VINO
Is also one OF the heirs elans that no has the hight
to pay these sums directly to hlmself and ms slater
and in this way ignore the other executors This Ia
the nrst question presented TO tho Probate Court
The question OF commission then comes up. ana
here we think Is the lender point where the fhoe
pinchcs, as the amount OF commission depends on
tho amount which passes through the hands OF the
executors, one party being anxious TO make ~ as
small as possible and the other as large as possible.
Otner questions arc also presented In the papers
ned BY Bogy and Tesson a. 70 the extent OF Charles
r. Choateau's interest In the nrm OF r. Chouteau. Jr
4 Co. Admitting his interest IL one-half, ana they
contend that tho capital Of the firm was ~
the late Peter Ch0uteau, and that Charles I. Cnou
teaus interest IL only In the prodts THIS lniorma
tion they claim they have the right TO get ano
Charles r. ChouteAu denies their right and refuses
TO inform them. II will also bc observed tnat tne
question Of commission may be here again the tender
point. Mr.. Charles p. Cnoutcau and Bogy were ootn
witnesses. Mr. BogJ stated In his testimony snas ne
offered to Mr. UhouIeau to leave the question OF con-
mission 10 him and his sister, and Whatever tney
would say was Just no would receive. Letters 70 tns
erect were read from him. The case, rom all ap.
pearances 10 shaping itself for long DURATION end
WIN not stop short Of the supreme Court