The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1876-10-06

tlnSheA OuSl1SSe, l. IHStFuCieu MI
Grisw old, in whom / then had and
still have confidence, to inform my
attorney, Mr.. Fenlon. of the egree-
ment, aud my wishes that 1t be
complied with by the withdrawal
of the answer aud the consent to a
Judgment in such form a. should
not imply guilt of any wrong be-
yond inability to pay.
never saw the papers OF record,
and never doubted that they were
SO closed as to shield me from the !
implication of crime, until they
appeared in print for my injury at
this time; nor should l ever have
submitted to any termination of
the case which left this question in
doubt had l understood it possible |
for any just misapprehension to
arise as to the character of the pro-
ceediugs.
In support of The foregoing state
ments, and for full protection |
against the charge OF pleading the
statute of Limitation, admitting the |
truth of the criminal charge in the |
complaint of Hughes & Lester or
allowing Judgment 10 be rendered |
on the evidence of Halliday, the |
following statements of attorneys
for both parties will, think, be
conclusive:
I.EAvENwoRTH, September p, rs.
Hon. Geo. L. Anthony,
DEAR SIR: In reply TO your nate of
to-day just received l beg TO submit the
following statement:
The petition filed against you by Ar
thur Hughes and others in the District
Court of this county. and which is sign
ed by me, was drawn by an attorney in
the State OF New York and filed by me.
Soon after the suit was commenced |
had an interview with You. in which you
stated that yon had no defence To make
to the debt and could not object to judg-
m emf for the amount due, but you denied
the allegations of fraud. and said you
must defend against it. It was because
OF those allegations, as understood you,
that you would employ Mr. Fenlon as
your attorney.
After Mr.. FeIon had filed the answer,
which, besides denial of the allegations
of Limitation. L saw you again when |
you stated that you had NJ knowledge |
that he intended to plead the statute, and |
that you did not deny the validity of the |
debt as debtmerely-
When court met,syou, myself and Mr.. |
Felon had an interview and you then |
stated, that 81 gttiged to leave the |
CITY, but said sf az you were willing |
the platntltf e3iessia Hs8a Judgement pro- |
vided il sheut Aef ke 50 enterd as to find |
you guilty OF the fraud charged.
do not remember whether / or Mr.. |
Fenlon drew the stipulation. know you
did not see it. The plea Of the statute of i
limitations was not Withdrawn, because
BIr. Fenlon claimed to think there was
soms thing in il, ana wanted the curt to
pass upon it. 1 did not think then, nor
do now, that Withdrawing the other
portion of this plea was an admission of !
the truth OF the allegations OF fraud, and
in the drawing of the judgment, the
form of which was forwarded by coun.
sci, there is no finding on that point, but
the Judgment IL simply a Judgment of
debt.
This was to guard against any such in
ference. / have no hesitation IN saying
that you lett us under the impression
that the judgment to be entered should
not be such as to carry any charge of
fra Id against you, and, as L have stated |
do not think it does.
L would further state that the deposit
ton of Mr.. Halliday was taken under Il
commission or order of court and no no
tice was served on either Mr.. Fenion or
yourself So far as | know you had no
personal knowledge of the taking of the
deposition, or that it had been taken.
(Signed,) HIRAM Girls woLD.
LEAvENwoRTH KAN, Sept. &c, '76.
/
DEAR SIR: In reply to your request
for what know about the case of Hughes
Il Lester against Hill, Anthony & Co. in
the District Court OF Leavenworth coun-
ty, have to say that it has been so long
ago since that case was disposed of that
my recollection is not at all distinct. l
know, however, that you said you had
not much money to spend in 1itigatIon;
that the debt was q just one, and claimed
that il ought to be paid by one of your
partners. You always denied to me that
there was any fraud upon your part and
my recollection is that 1 did not consult
you about the plea for the statute of limi-
tations; but believing there was poiut
in it filed it. The Withdrawal of the
answer was to avoid further trouble and
expense, and with the express under
standing that in case the plea of the stat.
ute was not sustained a simple money
judgment should be rendered which
should not imply an admission of the
frauds alleged in the petition, but simply
that the debt was due.
If this statement is Of any service to
you / give 1t to you cheerfuIly to use 1t
as you see proper. Very respectfully
(Signed,) Taos. FENLoN.
2. am charged with leaving
my place of residence in New York
State as a fugitive from justice.
That was guilty of some official
act for which my brother was made
an innocent sufferer in consequence
of my absconding.
All this is wickedly and mali
ciously false. / left New York
with the knowledge of all who
knew me. There was no necessity
for, nor was there any concealment
of purpose to leave, or anything
clandestine in the manner of leav-
ing.
3. 1 am charged with bringing
United States bonds to this State
and concealing them in the safe of
ID. r. Anthony.
This is utterly false. I did not
bring with me TO Kansas q Uuited
States bond or any other form of
bond, nor did D. r. Anthony be-
come accessory to any crime of
Minis by aiding to conceal such
bonds in the manner charged.
4. l am charged with a fraudu-
lent conveyance of property to my
wife for the purpose, and for the
intent to defraud my creditors.
This charge is utterly false. No
property was ever transferred to
her from me, nor does she now
own any property the title of
which or the ownership of which,
was ever directly or indirectly in
me. She was possessed of proper
ty, real and personal, at the date of
cur marriage. She held and owned
real estate and personal property
In Medina, New York, which was
bought and paid for long before
the firm of Hill, Anthony s. Co.
was organized or thought of. This
property was never enhanced in
value. nor increased in kind by con-
tributions from me since the or
ganization of such firm. During
the war such property, real aud
personal, was sold at private sale,
after having been publicly advertis-
ed in the papers of the City of Roch-
ester and other places contiguous
thereto, aud the proceeds thereof
invested in United States bonds or
other securities, and this without
the Interference or protest of any
human being.
Some of these bonds were brought