Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-08-16
ASHTON THOMPSON SUIT.

AOAlO1N. 1lxNJM1 DUN DULL
Nearly Complete Copy Of the Answer in
Her Mother and Uncle.
Yesterdays GLOBE made brief mention and
gave synopsis of the answer by defendants to
Katie Thompson Ashton's complaint to re-
cover money from her mother, Susan l..
Thompson, and her uncle, Horace Thompson.
Owing to the Importance of the suit. and the
peculiar features involved the answer is pnb-
iished herewith in full, excepting technical
verbiage:
Defendants in answer admit that plaintiff is
the daughter of James Egbert and Susan T..
Thompson, and that she attained lawful age
on the 10th day of August, 1874.
1t is then recited that James E. Thompson
died May 9th, 1870, that his estate was ad nit
ted to probate. and by decree of the probate
court, October g. 1871, an undivided fifth
part of all the real estate of deceased was as
signed to plaintiff, then remaining unsoId,
subject to the dover of defendant, Susan L.
Thompson. In addition it is claimed that one
sixth part of all personal property was as
the dover of defendant, Susan l.. Thompson.
The defendants admit the value of personal
and real property as stated in plaintiffs COM
plant.
Defendants, however, deny that plaintiff
went into possession of any part of the real
or personal estate assigned to her, she being
at the time Of the assignment and award u
minor and SO remained until August 10th,
1874. Defendants admit that on October 5
1871, they were appointed uardians Of plain
tiff, and aver that they duly qualified and per-
formed such duty until discharged, October
18th, 1876.
As such guardians they administered plain.
nsfQ ko tor orh orc
Defendants admit that q portion of The iu-
come from said eat ate or plaintiff part thereof
was applied to the payment of expense
plaintiff estate, her maintenance, education,
etc. Defendants EXPIRE sly deny that the
balance or net income of the estate of said
ward or any part thereof, except such part as
was done by the probate court, was paid
over by the guardians to or received by Susan
L.. Thompson.
And defendants expressly deny that the
plaintiff ever received any of said property our
ing the term Iof defe .dant,' guardianship ex-
cept as provided for by the probate court, and
all t. the contrary in the complaint is denied.
Defendants admit the receipt of $27, 1903 "a
during the time of the guardianship from Oor.
5, 1871. to Oct. II, 1876, as income and proceeds
accruing from plaintiffs estate. And dur
ing this period they paid to the use of
plaintiff not more than $4,000, but
they aver and charge the fact th-t during this
|
hursed for the plaintiff, and in the care and
management of her estate. and in the support
maintenance and education of their ward the
plaintiff, the sum of $2O,725.29. And they ex-
pressly deny that th. total amount paid by the
guardians to the plaintiff did not exc. ed The
sum of $1,000. And they deny that the BAL
ance or any portion OF it or the sum
OF $l6,2O0 or any other
stated in the complaint wa, kept back by Susan
l.. Thompson for her own u-e or benefit.
Defendants aver that on the 18th of March,
1873, and 9th of October, 1876. they filed an &C
count OF moneys delivered, the management of
the estate, ETC., in the probate court, and after
due notice was given plsintiff these accounts
were examined, pronounced correct and al
Lived by the court. That the settlement
of October 18th, 1876, termination of guardian
ship was filed as between plaintiff and her
guardians, at which time defendant was over
~ years Of age, that at this time plaintiff ap-
peared in court, examined, ETC., the inventory
and other papers and pronounced them COR
rect and agreed to the settlement then and
there made. That at snch time the guardians
did pay over to plaintiff the sum of $6, 1926
the amount found due her by the couct, and
did deliver to her all bonds, stocks and other
lans had In trust for her, and
plaintiff executed and delivered to
defendants her receipt therefor. And the
court made decree accordingly.
Defendants denied that the plaintiff did not
examine all papers, accounts. ETC.. and aver
that she made the release to her guardians
with full understanding of what she was
doing, as every opportunity was given her to
understand the matter involved. Defendants
deny that the accounts, ETC., above referred to
| are Inaccurate or that they moderated the
value of property, etc., in the settlement.
Defendants adRit that after October IT,
| 1876, until September, 1877, the plaintiff re-
| sided in the family of the defendant, Susan
L. Thompson.
Inc answer then goes on to state that after
this that the estate rs above assigned to p lain
| tiff, again came into control of defendant,
Susan L. Thompson. by the act and own free
will of the plaintiff. but without any
etc. That the gift and grant
was accepted and administered for
| the benefit of plaintiff. It is instanced that
during the existence of this gift or grant, that
susan L. Thompson and the plaintiff travelled
| two months, for which advantages the plaintiff
paid.
| Under the head of denials, the answer denies
that during the period of the gift or grant and
up to July l, 1877, that abe received not less
Than 81. 800, but admits $7,6U6.49. Defendant
| denies that she did not pay more than $1,000
tor plaintiff, but AYERS that she dsbursed 81
100 for her. Defendant denies that she kept
S6, SUI for her, but admits to keeping S3,606.-
~, as she deemed she was entitled by the gift
| or grant aforesaid.
Defendant denies that any part of plaintiff s
income came into her possession after July lst
1877.
Defendants deny that plaintiffs income
which came into their possession from Oct.
9th, 1871, to September, 1877. was not less than
$685. 800, and aver it was only $7,6 GAG
They deny that the total amount
paid to and disbursed for
plaintiff during the same period was not more
that $4,000. They aver that the same amount
I'd to 1874, 1859. They deny that the amount
retained by Susan L. Thompson was not less
that 1928 900, but declare it was only So, 6O6. 49,
In relation to the appearance of H. B.
Whipple's (the bishop name in the complaint,
defendants declare he advised with plaintiff at
her own solicitation, and in no way at the in.
| stance of defendants.
Defendants deny that on or about August,
1877, that Susan L. Thompson sold or appro-
priated to her own use and benefit the plain
tiff g interest in the household furniture at
Fairview, and furthermore that her (plaintiff' ~
interest therein was not sc 600, but $500.
In summary the mother in her answer to her
daughters complaint denies in toto all her
allegations. Furthermore the answer prays
| IN substance for an cstoppel of all proceedings
in view of the several and final settlement,
cited as havi1 & been decreed in the proba.e
court.
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS.
The Sewer business Booming-Rice Street
Up Again.