The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-08-24
Won ROQUES SUIT.
ANSWER OF MA. ARMSTRONG FILED
IN THE CHANceRv COURT.
He Claims to Have Compiled with Hss
Contract aud Paid the csunssss or
ner Attorney Every Dollar Dae

Few actions t-law brought In the Brch-
mond courts in the last few years have at
tracted more attention than the suit re-
Gently brought In the ChancerJ Court oy
Hon. Lesouidas b. Yarrell, of Greensvillo
county. as counsel for the Baroness Won
Roques against d. W. Armstrong. lawyer.
formerly of Louisvilie Kentucky, but now
Of New York City. and Others. charging i'm
proper conduct generally on the part OF
Armstrong in reference to certain lands in
the States Of Virginia. West Virginia, and
Kentucky, which the Baroness claimed an
interest in through her father. the late Da-
rius Is. Holbrook.
Special interest is attached to the case
in view Of the fact that the plaintiff Is the
mother of Mrs. Maybrick. whose celebrated
trial in London year or more ago created
| q profound sensation.
TO this suit Msssrs. j. TAYLOR Ellyson.
". J. Johnson. w. Hodges Mann, aud W.
r. McKenney. representing syndicate
who had purchased q portion OK these
lands. were made parties, though the OIL
stated that the bona fdes OF the sale 10
them was not questioned. and tne com
plainant expressed her willingness that 30
much of the land as was embrsced IN the
deed to Ellyson and others should be oon-
veyed to thon by Commissioners Oh the
court
AnmsrRovo's ANSWER FILED.
The allegations OF tho bill presented IN
the name OF the Countess were outlined
in this pipsr at ths time, and IL Will be re-
membsred that they were very sweeping
| in til cir character.
On yesterday the defendant, D. "; Arm
strong, through hi. counsel, W. X. ncken-
| nov. Eso.. Of Petersburg, filed very full
,attr. I. NO. Il =
| pages of typewriter matter 10 which
| The various allegations of the bill are 40
sgered The answer also gives compre-
| hensiyo and circumstAntial account OF All
| the dealings of Armstrong ss TO the Ian IL
| in question, whether with the Baroness on
| Roques herself. in person OF by letter or
whether with the counsel and advisers 0,
| the Baroness. and sets forth sundry letters
/ both from the Baroness herself and from
| hor counsel and advisers. These are
! quoted to show that Armstrong acted IN
| good faith and that until short time be,
| fore the institution OF this suit he na1
| every reason 10 believe that all that 40 hai
| done was heartily approved aud fully ap.
preciated by the Baroness herself, ana
by her counsel and advisers.
SATISFIED WITH ALL HIS WORK.
As evidence of this fact. the following.
| taken from letter written November ~,
1
| Hon. J. 8. Potter, formerly United states
| Consul at Crefeld, Germany. and now re,
| siding at Fredericksburg. Va. VINO had
| been for years one Of her counsel and ad-
| visers in reference TO her interest III the
| lands. il given in the answer;
II am Just on the point OF leaving nome
| and write to say. from your letter. rear
| may not have the pleasure OK seeing AT
| Armstrong | wished much TO nave inc
pleasure of thanking him In person tor all
| his long efforts in my AFFAIRS. L have nal
| 40 much private trou ole the last few years
that have scarce had thought for any
| one; SO If have not written him you mus,
| excuse me TO him. l am most satsnro
| with all his work tor me.
The answer also contends that the Bar
| oness is not entitled to any accounting
| from Armstrong. and insists that ne mas
| fully and to the letter complied with all o,
| his agreements touching the lands. ana
| that he has paid to the Baroness, or nor
! authorized attorneys. every dollar wnlcn
| abe was entitled to receive. 10 suoslan-
| tate this position extracts are quoted hot
| only from the letters or the Daiouoss ou'
| of her counsel as well
| THE GENUIsEyRss OF THR BILL
The answer also calls attention to the
| fact that the bill is neither signed by the
| baroness Won Roques or verified oy the
| affidavit of anyone, and cites clrcumstan-
| ces TO show that II could not have been
submitted 70 the Baroness. This IS done.
as the answer states. so that the court
| may require proper proof that the SUIT has
| been brought at the request. and with the
| consent and approval, OF the baroness
Won Roques, in order that she NAV not
| hereafter be in position to reDudiate the
action of the attorney who signed the bill
and refuse to be bound by the decision OF
| the case on its merits, on the ground tnat
she vas not properly party thereto.
The answer calls attention to the FUR
ther fact that this suit was Instituted
| without the knowledge, consent or ap
proval of any one Of those who had. foi
wears. been her counsel and advisors, and
charges that the Baroness could not have
,ndnced her former counsel and advisera
who in the nature of things. must have
known all of the facts and circumstance,
70 have brought such suit, since suot
counsel and advisers well knew thes
- hp n.