The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1898-05-03
WHEELING MAN FILES ANSWER
no rAE DECLARATIONS REcENTL1

Yesterday, IN the circuit court, o
chancery order vas made in the case
OF sameul NJ. Fox ct al, VS.. B. W.
Peterson ct al, giving detndant leave
to nle his demurrer to tho amended
bill OF the complainants, which was
accordingly done. and the complalnants
Joined in the demurrer. which was SET
for hearing at a futue day. Tho de-
fendant was given leave to nle his an
swer to the amended bill, which was
done.
In his answer. Mr.. Peterson goes into
Details more voluminously. II possible.
than did the Fox heirs in their declar-
ntions recently Med through their at
torneys, Caldwell and Caldwell. forty
two closely printed typewritten pages
being necessary.
Mr.. Peterson admits the fact, brought
out by the plaintiffs. that on June l.
1859, he purchased the residue OF the
1900 aero tract In controversy. for
which he paid $1,000. He denies that
his deceased brother, W. F. Peterson.
acted directly as agent OF the Fox land
in Marion and Wetzel counties after the
death OF their father. w. F. Peterson,
ST, As a matter OF fact, W. F. Peter
son, the younger, acted only as q suo-
agent under Soblesd Ross.
In purchasing the property In 1883,
says Mr.. Peterson, he acted not from
speculative motives. but to free his
brothers name from any controversy.
In 1889 he went over the tract. and
found claimants occupying a c%onsidera-
BILE part Of It. He denies. too. that w.
F. Peterson's interest in the purchases
vas hidden or In any way concealed
from the Fox heirs at Philadelphia.
The respondent denies a recent increase
in the value OF the land. aside from
the increased value brought about by
old development since the purchase In
1859. 1t IS not true. he adds, there was
activity In oil leasing near the tract
In 1859.
Continuing, the respondent Gays the
whole structure OF the amended bill IS
based upon Misrepresentation and false
hood, and that wherever the plaintiffs
have been SO hampered by documents
that they could not avoid presenting
some OF the facts which really existed,
they have attempted 10 distort and
miscontrue such documents, and 20 at
tribute 10 them meanings and places
and connections which these documents
did not in fact have, and whenever the
plaintiffs were able TO evadc h re-
strictions OF these documents they have
misrepresented and mlsstated the facts.
Respondent AYERS that the p%retense o.
the plaintiffs that they were misled In
to entering into the said transactions
with respondent, and into making him
the deed aforesaid, Is wholly false; on
the contrary. the plaintiffs were anxious
to conclude the transaction in the man
ner in which 1t was concluded. and
| without being In any meaning deceived
or misled by respondent, were greatly
pleased to make on advantageous dis
position OF their property.
Further, It Is alleged that the plain
| tins case arises out OF the subsequent
| oil and gas development. In their
avidity have shown themselves to be
| willing to reach after what does not be-
long to them. and to. obtain by misrep-
| ~resentation and falsehood the property
in question"
Concluding. the defendant prays that
the suit be dismissed at the plaintiffs
cost.