Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1893-03-17
DENIES THE ALLEGATIONS.
George ". Palmer Replies 10 tic
Charges by Wells Smith.
HE SAYS liz Mn NO CHEATING.
Claims to Have Bought the Disputed
Property aud Is willing 10 Pay
the Agreed Price.

Geo. W. Palmer has filed, by his at.
torneys Richards, Moylo d. Richards,
an nnswer to tho complaint made
against him In the Third district court,
10y Wells Smith, administrator OF tho
estate q Lot Smith, deceased.
In this answer defendant denies that
Lot Smith, deceased, was at the tine
oihiB death the owner Of the real cs-
tate mentioned In the plaintiffs com.
plalnt, and that the said Lot smith did
not at any time execute deed with tho
name Of the grantee Lett blank to
the said George Palmer solely for the
purpose OF raising money on tho
premises therein described or other.
vice, for the benefit Of tho aid Smith.
He also denies that on the 22i day
Of June, 1862, lie learned OF the death
Of Lot Smith and hastened TO tho
residenco OF Lydia Mcbride smith,
wife Oi Lot Smith, which was ut Rock.
land, Idaho, Ru1 represented 10 her
that he, Palmer, hat purchased from
her husband ths premises now IL dis.
pute, or had paid Tor them. lie also
denies that he at any time, or through
any false or fraudulent representation,
Or by the payment Of $1,000 or any
other sum, obtained Mrs. buiith's sig.
nature ~ any blank dee or that ut
the time ho IL alleged 10 have obtained
her signature ho denied my knowle ledge
or Information ~ 10 the death OF her
husband.
He further denies that In June, 1899,
after no had learned VI tnu death
Of Mr. Lot Smith, or at any other
time, ho frauJulsntly filled IN the
blanks OF said blank deed by inserting
his own name In them as grantee, and
the words "siAteen hundred dollars"
as consideration therefor, for the pur-
pose OF cheating the plaintiff, heirs or
estate, or for any other purpose. De.
iendRnt admits that tho prem ses are
now worth more than $1,000, but alleges
that he gave aud ID ready 10 give the
full contract price OF the premises
agreed upon.
lie also denies that on the Both day
VI July, or ut any other time, he
altered or caused t. be- altered, the deed
to Ice filed with the records OF deeds
OF Davis county, Utah, and further
alleges that Lot Smith, prior 10 his
hehlllt ulu SUI 10 lnt utltnuhul tue
premises now claimed by him for tho
sum OF $1,000, with tho further under
standing that he would purchase the
outstanding dover right OF Lydia Me-
Bride smith, the wife OF Lot smith, and
would also give Mrs. Jane Smith a home
ON the said premises anu support for
the snmo during her natural life, and
that Lot Smith gave the defendant a
proper deed for the same. The defend.
ant also alleges that Mrs. Jane Smith,
plural wife OF Lot Smith, could and
would retain her home on the premises
mentioned In the complaint, aud would
receive the support stipulated In the
contract during her lifetime. He fur
ther states that In pursIance OF the
purchase agreement he paid the said
Lydia smith, for her dover right in
the premises tho sum OF $1,000, aud thnt
Mrs. Jane smith has become the pcs.
SCISSOR OF the home 10 which she Is
entitled In pursuance o.. tne contract Of
sale, aud not otherwise.
In conclusion defendant states that
ho has offered 10 pay 10 plaintiffs
attorney, ). w. Darke, the sum OF
$1,000 for the estate OF the said Lot
Smith, but the offer has not been
accepted, and that he Il still ready to
pay the same. Wherefore no prsys
that this suit against him be dismissed
with costs.