The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1896-05-07
THEIR ANSWER.
ALLEGATIONS OF A PETITION
VIGOROUSLY DENIED.
Defendants Robert A. Miller and
Lewis Miles Define the Issues Be
tween the Parties Ia Pleading
Filled hY Their ATTORNEYS,

tween the Parties Ia a Pleading
Filed by Their Attorneys.
The case of Alice n. Chance against
Robert A. Miller and Lewis Miller was
recently commenced in common pleas
court, plaintiff alleging that the defend
ants, acting as administrators of Jacob
Millers estate, failed to make return of
various sums aggregating about s32, 900.
In her petition plaintiff asked Judgment
in that sum. The case was widely pub
lished, and rs defining the issues, the
answer Of the defendants will prove
interesting. 1t was filed about noon
Thursday by Thayer, Turner and Webber
and Baldwin and Shields, attorneys FOR
defendants The answer is here ap-
pended
The defendants, Robert A. and Lewis
Miller, for their answer, say that the
allegations charging fraud conspiracy and
conversion contained in the petition, are
each and all false, and they therefore deny
the same.
The defcn dants admit that on the 23d
day of January, 1890, they received a
check in the sum of So, 900, but they deny
that said check was cashed by said Rob
ert A. Miller in any manner whatever,
and they say that on or about the same
day said check was placed to the credit
of the plaintiff, Alice n. Chance (then
Alice n. Miller,) in the First National
Bank of Canton, Ohio, as the plaintiff
we'll knows, or, at least, ought to know.
The defendants admit that on or
about the 10Th day Of December, 1890,
said Robert A. Miller drew q check in
the sum of SO, ,Sl3.6O, but they deny that
said check was cashed by said defendant,
or that any part thereof was converted to
his own use and they say that said Jacob
Miller in his lifetime, and thereafter his
estate, was indebted to Mt. Union Col
lege in the sum Of S35, 900 and to the
president of said college for one-half his
salary, in about the sum of 50, 900, and to
the campus fund CT said college in the sum
of about 81, 1877. so; that on or about said
date, one J. NJ. Carr, the financial agent
of said college, made a draft on the de-
PENDANTS for the sum then due on said
obligations, to-wit, S2,Sl3 90; that said
check was drawn by said Robert A. Mil
Ter in order to meet said draft that said
sum was credited on said obligations to
said Mt. Union College, and the plaintiff
and said estate had the sole benefit thereof.
The defendants admit that the sums of
So, 600, sS56.3O, 1914 and s3,051.51
formed part of the credit of sci, ,625.05,
for which voucher No. 116 was given,
mentioned in the petition, but they
deny that any part of said sums was re-
tained and converted TO the use Of the
defendants, and they say that on the gath
day of November, 1890, they placed in
the hands of said Alice n. Miller, GER
tain draft on the Manufacturers Nat
ional Bank of Philadelphia in said sum of
S., 900, payable to the order of said Alice
y. Miller, which draft was afterwards
endorsed by said Alice n. Miller to B.
II. Werner s. Co., in part payment for
house and lot In the city of Washington,
d. c., and the plaintiff had the sole bene-
fit thereof that on or about the 3lst day
of March, 1891, the defendants placed in
the hands of the plaintiff a certain New
York draft, being No 26lO, drawn on the
Importers and Traders National Bank,
payable to the order of said Alice n.
Miller, of which said $500. 30 formed a
part, and said draft was thereafter en-
dorsed by the plaintiff, and deposited at
the Columbia National Bank of Washing
ton, ID. c., to her credit; that said sum of
$Sl4 was paid by the defendants on GER
tain draft made by one j. M. Carr, the
financial agent of Mt. Union College, in
part payment Of, and as a credit on, GER
tain obligations of said Alice n. Miller,
and of the estate of said Jacob Miller, to
said Mt, Union College; that said sum of
SO, 05l. 81 was paid by the defendants, on
certain promissory note, and in full nan-
Miller in his lifetime to one Mrs. 5. j.
Shirer, in the sum of $4,000, principal,
and accrued interest SOL. 81; and that said
sums were expended for the sole use of
said Alice N. Miller and of said Jacob
Miller's estate.
The defendants admit the execution of
fha in Ibn
petition, and the payments thereon sub
stantlally as averred in the petition, but
they deny that any part thereof, and es-
pecially deny that the sum Of SO, 6S3 10,
mentioned in the petition, was converted
to their own use, and they say that in
the lifetime of said Jacob Miller, and
thereafter up to the final payment made
on said contracts the defendant Lewis
Miller, and said Jacob Miller, and his
estate, were jointly indebted in the sum
of S23, 449. 62 to the Aultman, Miller t&
Co., on an account against them as
shown by the books Of said company,
growing out Of sundry payments thereto
fore made by said company on and in
satisfaction of the joint obligations of
said Jacob Miller and Lewis Miller to
other persons, and at their request; that
in full adjustment of said joint indebted
ness to said The Aultman, Miller & Co.,
and to said Margaret and Daniel Tonner,
the estate of said Jacob Miller was
charged with the sum due oD said Tonner