The Pickens sentinel. [volume] (Pickens, S.C.) 1871-1903, 1888-01-05
THE DEFENSE.

THE DEFENSE.
The answer of the defendant in the libel
>uit Of Edward McCrady, Jr, against +.
T.. Robertson has been filed in the Office of
the Nrlk Of Court Robbed of the usual
legal phrases the answer is substantially ns
follows:
The defendant, by John II. Sloan, Jr.,
and lylcS u llayncswOrth, his attorneys,
denies that his letter set forth in the com
pIalnt is false or was mnliCiOusly written,
| but alleges that each and every charge con
| tanned therein is true
| |. The answer states that in 1876 Mary +.
McCrniy, Wm. II. DAvic, John VI. DIvic,
| Allen j. Davic and Mary +. WoOlf were
| tenants in common of a tract of land in
Chc-tor county, known as "Tivoli" and
containing 5000 acres Mary l.. McCrady
! being the aunt of the the other persons
! named, who were brothers and sisters.
2 In 1850 Jones IL Robertson purchased
| the interest of John VI. Davic and Mary +.
| Moolt in the said tract Of land.
. y number Of other transfers arc cited.
The death of Allen Davit is mentioned
| and certain other transactions bearing upon
| the land.
| i. Jones a. Robertson state that they en-
| !ClCd into Il contract 10 purchase from John
II. DAvic and Mary +. Woolf their interest
in the tract acquired by the death OF Allen
| DAVE.
>. They took the professional advice of
the plantiIl, Gen. McCrady, 70 ascertain
the proper method OF cnrrying out the i'll
| tcnil"nS OF the parties in interest and as to
| how they might obtain a good title, and
| especially as to the force and effect of Il
mortgage Of William r. Duvic then held
| by the Rock Hill Manufacturing and In.
| dustrial Association.
& That the plaintiff advised them Clones
Il R0hCrts"n} that said mortgage was
| worthless, whcrcupOn they con
summatcd the arrangements they had en-,
tcrcl iuto.
:. That other arrangements were made,
resulting in loan OF So 600 on the bond of
| Henrietta G. Davic, guaranteed by Jones &
| Robertson and secured 10y mortgage of
| her interest in the tract Of 800 acres, part
OF "Tivoli. Jones IL Robertson after,
| wards mOrgagCd the OnC-tiiih interest de
rived by them from the estate Of Allen j.
Davic, to Pclzcr, Rodgers & Co. to secure
| a 60nd fd6 debt due the laSt-namCd firm.
). Then follows this statement: THAT
| matters proceeded thus, all parties being
upon the most friendly terms until the lat,
| ter part of the year 1856, when this de
fcndant and his said COpartncr havin! be-
come involved in financial difficulties, said
| palntill, rs this defendant now charges,
conceived the design Of forcing said lands
to public sale, SO that he might purchase
| the interest of said Jones & Robertson
| therein at an inadequate price, and. not
withsttnding every effort Of said Jones Il
Robertson to effect partition and division
of said lands without litigation, commenced
aud for while prosecuted an action cnti.
tied Mary +. MCCrady rS. Allen Jones ct
al for tn partition Of said lands, but find
| ing that slid Jones & Robertson were not
SO helpless rs he had supposed, and that
on account Of his failure to make certain
money arrangements which nc had cX-
pCctCd to make, his scheme might react
upon the interests which he was cndcavor-
ing to advance, he adopted the policy of
delaying the progress Of said cause by all
means IN his power, but said Jones Il Rob
crson, by their counsel, were vigorously
| pushing said cause to Il conclusion"
| 3. The answer further alleges that an
| arbitration was agreed to- with the under
| standing that it was to be ''iinal and con
| elusive upon all the parties concerned, "
| and that by common consent the task Of
preparing The Particles for submission was
| C0niidCd to the plaintiff (Gcn. MCCrady),
who undertook the same, wcl.knOwing
the terms Of agreement. and that full con
lidenCe was placed in his fidelity and skill
10. That at the session Of the Board of
AFoilTatlOh III IhcSlcf, III August, 1887,
the plaintiff, Gen. MCCrady, as n witness,
testified that he, the witness, had paid
$G0U for certain judgments against W r.
Davic, which had been bought by Jones &
Robertson, which testimony was wholly
untrue.
II. That pending the arbitration the
plaintiff, Gen. McCrady, purchased "for
$50 the mortgage which he in 1881 reported
to said Jones & Robertson rs worthless,
and brought his action to foreclose the
same"
12. That the board of arbitration having
filed their award in favor of Jones & Rob
crtson, the plaintiff Gen. McCrady) ere,
fused to abide thereby, and opposed the
execution Of the same; but proposed to
assent thereto upon condition, amongst
other things, that said Jones 81 Robertson
should consent that the mortgage bought
by him as alleged in the preceding para