The age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1897-1902, 1897-09-02
CREDITORS CHARGE FRAUD
A Bill in Ghancery in the City
=. Court So Alleges.
A CROSS BILL IN ANSWER
To a Divorce Suit FiIed-NegIect and Habitua
Drunkenness Are the Grounds For
Legal Separation.

A bill in chancsry was filed in the city
Durham & Co.. Williams & Marks, and
McMillon-Lee Company against S. J.
Gusscott, Mary Gusscott, and the Bir-
mingham Building and Loan company.
Thu parties allege that the defendant,
S. ]. Gusscott, was indebted to the plain
lifts in the sum of over 5000 and that
judgments have been secured against
him for $26455 and they are still unpaid
He was a member of the firm of Mes
bitt & Co. and that hs owned lot on
Second avenue and Ninth street prior to
May 1, 1885, On that day, they say, he
transferred it to his wife for a cited con-
sideration of $500. He is also said to
have owned fifty shares of stock in the
Birmingham Building and Loan asso-
citation of par value of $40, and that 1t
would mature with the twentieth series
of that company's stock. This, it is
charged, has been transferred to his
wife. The stock is valued at about $500.
1t is claimed that he purchased other
property for 5000 cash and that the deeds
were made out to his wife. The plain
tiffs allege that he was without means
to purchase the property and that the
sale of the property to his wife was
sham, voluntary, and without considera-
ton. They say that the conveyance
was made In order to put the property out
of the reach of his creditors; that he was
in debt at the time and that he trans
ferred his property without monetary
consideration.
They aver, and ask that the conveytan
ces he declared null and void and fradu-
aent and ask the court to ascertain the
amount due to each of The creditors and
such others as may join in, and thar such
amounts be declared lien on the prop
erty. Felix E. Blackburn and Kerr &
Haley represent the complainantts.
In the same court a cross bill and nm.
swer was filed in divorce case that
has been pending for soma time. The
title of the original bill was P. H. Money
against Minnie Money.
I'm the answer the woman, who is rep
resented by Attorney ]. 3. Edwards, de-
MES all of the cha ges brought by her
husband. She says tna; they were mar
ried in October, 1892 and tina: they cor
iir,ed to live togetnec us man and wife
urt!l June l. 1S9 .;ne den,-s that her
husband found man in her house on that
night or several nights previous, as ne
alleged. She denies having committed
ID, Will Drive t1ltn nj or
man, and says that she Has always been
true to her martial vows.
In the cross bill, in which She in turn,
asks THE court to grant her 81 divorce,
she alleges that shortly after their mar
riage her husband began to misreat her,
and that on one occasion he threw a
lamp at her. She says that on another
occasion her mother had to interfere and
keep her husband from shooting her, and
that several times me has threatened her
life. She alleges that even since the fill
ing of the original bill he has met her
on the streets and, on one occasion, hit
har with a pair of brass knucks She
alleges that he knocked her senseless and
that she remained in that condition for
| some time. She asks for an absolute d.
voree.
In the same court another suit Tor Oh
| vorce was filed by Rana Scott,pro ami
| against her husband, Frank Scott. In
| her bill of allegations she says that They
were married in 1895, ard that they lived
| together as man and wife for about one
year. Shortly after their marriage she
says that her husband began to neglect
| her and to drink He soon became an
| habitual drunkard, she says, and his con-
| duct was rude and violent that she
| was compelled to leave him. Through
her attorney, J. s. Edwards, she asks the
court to grant her an absolute divorce
DEPJTY COLLECTOR BROWN