The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1891-07-16
THE OTHER SIDE.
George N. and Levi f.. Wise Answer
the Charges
Made Against Them by Daniel MY yers and
Henry r. Brooke--They Deny Many
Things.

In the case of Daniel Myers and Henry
E. Brooks against Levi e. and George N.
Wise, defendant George N. Wise, in an
answer TO the petition of the plaintiffs,
denies that plaintiffs were in partnership
in the buying and selling OF live stock
under the arranaemen., ,h as aeged neg ba IN and ,n
the defendant Levi T.. Wise conspired to-
Qether TO defraud plaintiffs and that they
took from the postofiice at Greentown the
envelope enclosing the draft described in
the petition, or caused the name OF plain
tiff Daniel Myers to be forged tnereon;
Defendant further states that he loaned
Daniel Myers, his father-in-law,. $1,000
with which TO purchase live stock, and
that Myers was TO pay one-half the profits
10 defendant George N. Wise for the loan.
In order to make the loan, Wise states
that he borrowed the money. from his
father, Levi e. Wise, also oeienaant % IN
Wise further states that the shipments
OF live stock were made in his name and
that the live stock was consigned to New.
ton and Giilett, at Jersey City, N.J In
due time Wise states that he went to the
postofIlce for the returns OF the shipment
and the postmaster informed him that
there was nothing for him, but that there
was n letter from Jersey City for Daniel
Myers, one OF the plaintiffs In this action.
He asked the privilege OF taking the letter
TO the said Myers, which privilege the
postmaster granted. Wise says further
that he went to Myers' home wito the let
ter, but did not flud him at home. He
therefore took the letter to his own homo.
There he opened the letter and states that
he found the draft as alleged in plaintiffs
petition. This was on Saturday. On the
following Monday he states that he took
the letter and the draft to Myers and
asked him to give him the draft as part
thf a Innnn1
Wise states that Myers agreed TO this and
said he should take the Graft, get the
money and pay his father. Defendant
states that he then took the draft and en-
dorsed thereon the name OF Daniel Myers
and handed il to defendant, Levi Il. Wise.
who also endorsed IL, the whole matter
being done with the full knowledge and
consent of said Daniel Myers. Having
fully answered, he prays to be dismissed
with his costs.
Defendant Levi e. Wise, in his answer,
corroborates the statements made by de-
fendant George N. Wise. He states fur
ther that he went to Myers and informed
him that he had obtained S985.16, the
amount Of said draft, and was ready TO
settle for the $1,000, which his son had
loaned Myers. He states further that an
account was then struck off between
Daniel Myers and defendant Levi E.Wise,
and II was found that Myers still owed
him S309.15, for which sum Myers gave
his promissory note, less 10 cents. He
denies every allegation in the petition not
admitted or denied in his answer, and
asks to be dismissed with his costs.
The above answers are published, SO
| that the public can have full information
regarding this case, which now promises
| to be OF some interest. 1t will be remem-
bered that Levi e. and George N. Wise
have commenced suits against the Demo
crat Publishing Co., for $4,000 each, on
| account of the publishing of the charges
| alleged in the petition of Daniel Myers
| and Henry Z. Brooke. The answers oi
the defendants will be of interest to
| many.