Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-04-24
MR.. EAGAN'S ANSWER.
He Denies Having Misspproprlated the
Grcenleaf Property.

He Denies Having Misapproprlated the
Grcenleaf Property.
The answer to the complaint in the case of
Julia f. Greenleaf against Peter F. Egan, in
which suit was brought for an accounting,
was filed in the district court yesterday af-
ternoon. In abiding to the allegations of
the complaint, the answer admits certain
statements relative to the agreement between
the parties at the time defendant assumed
charge of the business. He denies that he
ever made any of the representations stated
in folios three and four of the complaint
and he admits that at or about the time
stated there came into his possession con-
siderable sum of money and considerable
number of accounts. Whether or not the
money amounted to $4,000, or as to whether
the said accounts amounted to $2,100, the
defendant alleges he has no means of know
ing, for the reason that the books have been
in plaintiffs possession since September,
1879. He admits that he collected such &C
counts in part and that the proceeds were
used in said business.
He also admits that plaintiff is q woman
with very limited knowledge of business
transactions, but denies that she never gave
any personal attention to the business,
alleging that she employed a business man
and accountant named j. I. Beaumont to
keep the books and attend to the financial
affairs of the business, and whose actions
we're solely subject to the authority of
plaintiff. 1t is also alleged that during the
time defendant had charge of the business,
reports and statements of the transactions
were made out by Mr.. Beaumont and sub
mitted to plaintiff and her legal counsel. 1t
is alleged that the reports showed
that none of the alleged wrongs
and grievances had been COM
mitted by the defendant, and defendant
AYERS that, from time to time, he submitted
full reports of the management of said bust
ness to Mr.. Beaumont, and that plaintiff
acquiesced in the correctness of said re-
ports long before the commencement of
the action.
He admits that he collected and disbursed
large sums of money: that the business in
volved thousands of dollars and realized a
considerable profit, but he AYERS that plain
tiff was kept informed of the nature and
amounts of the transactions.
He denies that the capital, property, re
ceipts and profits were at any time within
his exclusive management, possession or con-
troll, but that the management and control OF
the same were with and shared by the plaintiff
her legal counsel and the said Beaumont.
He denies that he ever refused to render an
accounting, and ayers that he has accounted
to and turned over to the plaintiff sll moneys
ever collected or received by him in the
premises and all the property mentioned In
the complaint. He AYERS that he was faith
full and honest in the performance Of all his
duties IN the premises. He denies that he
ever converted or appropriated to his own
use any sum Of money, quantity or article OF
property whatever belonging to the plaintiff,
or ever took or appropriated to his own use
any SUM of money whatever, or ever con-
cealed from her any act whatever that he
ever did in the premises, or ever neglected or
refused to account for, pay over, or deliver to
the plaintiff any property or money of hers,
or that he ever converted to his own use any
goods, wares Or merchandise belonging to
plaintiffs.
He denies Zach and every allegation in
the complaint, save so admitted, and denies
that there is due the plaintiff any sum of
money whatever. He AYERS that during his
employment he fairly and fully accounted
for all his doings and that nothing was found
to be due plaintiff. The answer then alludes
to the closing out of the business in Septem-
Der, 1879, at which time defendant AYERS that
he turned over all of the assets, property &C.
cumulations and profits of the business, the
same being taken possession of by her
brotheI-in-law, Damon Greenleaf, and that
the books showed that the business had beeu
honestly conducted. It is averred that in De-
cember last plaintiff requested the defend
ant to buy the good will of the business, we'll
knowing that she had no grievance, and that
defendant then and there paid her the sum
of So, 500 for the good will Of the concern,
and it was agreed that said sum would salts
fly all transactions between the parties, and
that defendant should enjoy said good will
free from annoyance. In conclusion, de-
PENDANT AYERS that the action was brought
maliciously without probable cause and with
out any foundation whatever.