The Daily times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1886-1889, 1889-03-10
THOMAS WILL CASE.
ARGUMENT HEARD IN THE CHANCERY
COURT YESTERDAY
ANSWER OF THE ADklSTRA TOR
READ.
GREAT INTEREST MANIFESTED IN
HE CASE.
Judge T.. c. Furks opened tho Argument
for the Claimant. and Was Followed
by Judge Waller X. -fapies.
for the Administrator, Sc.

Judge u. c. RurLs opened tho Argument
for the Claimant. and Was Followed
by Judge Waller X. -tapies.
for the Administrator. Sc.
Promptly a II O'Clock yesterday morn.
inr all The counsel in the Thomas viii
case assembled in the Chancery Court
for the re-argument on the motion
for receiver Judge Waller K. Sta
ples. Colonel John II. Guy, ana
Messrs. 3. 3. Munford and VI. NJ. Gi
Earn appeared for the administrator
Major Leigh II. Page, Judges +. {. Burks,
George L. Christian. Edmund Naddlll,
Jr.. and Colonel W. W. Gordon, Messrs.
Edgar Allan and Frank W. Christian
represented the plaintiff. Bette 1.
l. wis
Mr. II. G. Cannon was also present rs
counsel for the curators-Messrs. Mann
$. and y. r. Quarles. When the case
wa, called Judge Christian arose and
began reading their answer, but, upon
the suggestion OF MAJOR Page, he first
read the petition Of the cura-
tors which was fled sometime
Iaro. He then read the claimants answer
10 the petition, also the aliidavits that
we're published Yesterday, with two adj
dltional ones Of Messrs y. ". BOwe
and T. William Pemberton concurring
with the others which appeared in the
/ TINES yesterday.
The following is the answer OF Major
Legh L. Page, which was read by him.
f Also the demurrer of the administrator,
which was entered yesterday In the
court
Answer OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.
Inthe Chaucery Court of tie city Of
+ Richmond-DettieT Lewis against W
4. Qustles and VI $. Quarles, curator
&c
+ 10 the Honorable Edcard Il Ftslagh
f Judge Vi Sad Court
/ The demurrer aud answer Of Leigh 4.
PAGE. administrator Of ". \. Thomas,
and to the petition of ". L. Quarles and
F ". s. Quarles, exhibited by them az cura.
tors and indh idually against him ana
others in the ahoye-entilled cause.
Thi. respondent saith that said petit
ton is sufficient IN law and doth demur
10 the same without waiting said denur-
rer, but insisting thereon for answer to
said petitioners, says, that IL is true that
the petitioners we've appointed curatofs
/ If the estate OF ". \. Thomas,
and duly qualified as sucA, aud
T I'm that character did take posses ion and
.fil hold the estate of ". \ Thomas,
deceased. IL Is also true that on the
18Th OF February, 1889, the respondent
was appointed and duly qualified as the
administrator Of said estate, giving bond
conditioned according 10 law IA the
penalty or 100000, with approved
.ecurity. aud that on the day FOL.
lowing he did demand the surrender
frcm petitioners OF tho personal estate
0t his intestate, which demand was not
complied with, The petltloncrexhibiti ng
10 respondents d paper served on them
bv the sald Bette Lewis, notifying them
not 10 turn over and deliver up 10 him
or ans one else the personal property
secured and held By them as curatOfs,
and also notifying them that on the 23d
Of February, 1889, she would move this
honorable court for the appointment OF
receiver OF said property.
This respondent has no personal
knowledge OF the character and value OF
said property nor OF the actings and do
ings Of the petitioners in respect thereof,
and II deemed material he Will requirs
due proof OF the same
This respondent further answering,
saith IL IS true that before hi9 appoint
ment as administrator the said Bette ].
+ Lewis had exhibited IN this honorable
court bill against the petitioners as
representatives IF the estate o, said
Thomas, claiming that with the con-
siderable exceptions the very large per-
sonal estate held by them as curators
had been given TO her by respondents in
the estate, and that the said petitioners
hled their answers under oath 10 said
Bin, In which they enormously denied
such pretended giit, insisting that said
iprOperly OF the estate or said " a.
Thomas was rightfully held and pos.
sessed by them as It's curators, which said
answer respondent pray may 10 taken
and read az q part thereof lhe only
rival claimants 10 said prop
erty of which the respondent has
aay knowledge was the said Bette
/ Lewis and the said curators IN their
stead and this respondent on the
other side And this respondent IS adj
vised and insist that the said curators
are not Stockholders OF said personal
property. that IL was sud II there
Dlaint only whenever the law
Of the court shall deliver up said prop
erty ID this respondent rs administrator
or The estate or said Thomas, and that
the notice by the said BEETLE /. Lewis
did not perform their duty In that re
spect. nor her bill filed In this
court against them. IL any legal
/ or valid excuse for such failure.
and your respondent il further advised
aud insists that she surrender and de-
T liver up said property 10 this respondent
would have been and were made will De
f fully authorized AID discharge said ca
| fatOr. and their securities from and
against the claim OF the said
Bette I. Lewis and from and against
any aud all causes whatsoever, and he 4,
/ further advised and insists that his
receipt as Administrator ID said
cufatOIs Tor said property would
have been and viii DO all the
protection they require or can
+ lawfully ask, although this respondent
will make no objection 10 an order or
/ this honorable court, directing such sur.
render and delivery. And this respond
ent is also advised and insists that said
petitioners have no right 10
have their said petition read
either asa bill Of interplcadeF or cross
/ Dill aud 10 raise anew the issues already
made and formed between the .aid BEETLE
/ /. Lewis and the personal representa-
tiyes Of the estate Of the said " William \.
Thomas, and now Ia course OF
formal investigation, as petitioners,
have been relieved OF their
Office as curators, they have no longer
/ any interest or concern in those issues,
the maintenance whereof In behalf OF
the estate OF said Thomas Is now de
/ tended law upon this respondent
And now, having fully answered, this
respondent prays 10 have them dis
missed, with their cost In MS behalf
unjustly incurred.