West Virginia argus. [volume] (Kingwood, W. Va.) 1877-1946, 1899-02-02

~ p 'u as.t eui tit .nE r sid aiil % COM
t'~'t' iue piaintr caubot assert his alleged
'sh'1 o3 reason o. Z s. % q. ,seily which Is not
'Nt''''''i anu iAat f1id delay operates ia
ei''9 ~ anevidenee 20 a-s nt. acquicsceDce or
Wi. r, dn especially D. such th. case In suits
Z" srt SD T ,ns otio,is 90 occosnt o. alleged
l.'tA' ma that iaches asd neglect are always
as ountehanced iu a c'asf ~ eout.
lpNr fe jon, 'n also 90 -.ee thai inc plattt-
it siuer the aSc II the rett esitte eDm,,lained
o.. H's rented Dos 20 ear. fr.,.u one or the p.r-
cii sf-' rs The aanls, a certuir nnrdio., IN the
town OF Aiug sooi. tbu, arknor.euCins, tnes,ii
pa .thtsi - rigl'ta ilr sa.d property ana walS-
tns nry lights which De- % Ichf have or his own.
as lieg-1 iu Sad oit OF ,oiapiaibt
i 'li q sqo; a-nts eahy 'htt the ffaiatln Ia
iE-ysrt IS allc-ci in iid biii 81 com ,,lairt to
in lud as ti asset, Do his nedgic 0r no eity
~ q ,,lfh BIS goo iu,r in hankrunf-y the resI
nd peas mat property snld az sail sale and
iin' in sai 1iii 90 eon tiui, IS ihe tIust decd
Undo which 3ti qfof,rty was ID was a lien
Dh o. 81 property. treaicd by the plaintiff.
vo'Clttriy, for Tia h.ucni of So, creditors.
"tinut preference as q any. more than iour
.I1nths gsio tOifv E,g OF hls alleged petition
ih bonkI1picy--in ioct, ne.I. ) Two years before.
Your respondents deuy nat ihfSf hid or have,
any knOwl dgc OF, or parifcip ted la, any con-
spittcy pr attempt 10 d 'precitte the value OF
the pialnti1s property FOR the beBcft II indi-
vidGnl cpcditJu., auj thereby prey MT ns said
proper iion bringing sufficient amount Ior
the o.s hursv Of AN the plaintiffs liabilities
ald lcfye sImf.Ai1y cor The benent OF the
NJ l7tn Your respondents here allcge that
'h' plaintiff Is not s'nc, re- iu his apparent anx-
ie f- tAc ala ige al an hs liabilities az ;l,,
W'lhin ha3 pgblely declared In me town az
Nins WOOD that The defendant William q
Brown the largest Individual creditor OF the
r'u'n'iD' SASH n1i nave ohc cent Of ms tpiaint-
~ ~ e.. ate - IA. can hclp II. our respondenta
are reformed, ana - aucgc, that by this sun IT,
is me Intention ~ the ia piaintin 70 sau lnder
aud waste his estate IN costs OF litigation
rather than have n go TO his creditors. where iU
! properly belongs, and also 90 retain possession
o the home property which he now occupies I'm
part, ana part OF which he rents TO his land
| iody IN part payment OF his board bill
your respondents deny that by any action OF
| theirs The said plaintiff has become insolvent
| but they aliege that the said plaintiff was in
solvent Tor "a long time prior 70 the execution OF
! the nd deed OF assignment for the benent OF
hiscreditors; and your respondents here submit
thRt II the plaintiffs property was worth
J s3l,OOh as clnimcd 10y him. az the time of his
assignment and his deb amounted TO but
! $1,000, as alleged by him In his said bill OF
complaint, II seems very strange that he should
make an assignment for the benefit OF his
| creditors "a proceeding resorted 10 only I'm in
soiVeEcy Boty,ur respondents are bic
enough 20 view The matter in the light OF the
fact that the debts were ascertained, while the.
assets with Which TO pay lhem were not
Confronted with All the foregoing ficts ana
| allegations we leave the plaintiff, James A.
b.oNh' with the hope sincerely expressed, that
he may Il al some honorable way Ia which ,o
cEtrcate himself T. ON the ne snes Ia which bIs
! TptUdiars ana sp.enetlc allegations ana the
P""tt. fDN'" tS ltNc .iaeel hin