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

trustees, WIN. 6 brown. Major Orrund
others. That false impression may
not be created we publish below the
answer of Shaw * Hyde. trustees. 70
the Olil fled by Mr Brown in our cir-
cult court. which seems 20 embrace the
samo matter as the bill is the United
states court. The answer certainly
makes some very d uaag.ug charges.
THE AEswEB:
ia nes a Brown
shw Il Hyde Thu toes. ct az
TO he Honorable Ohm liotnes iio!t. Judge OF
the ircuit con OF Preston County:
rio Joint and several answer of Loruy thsw
and Hcuy clay vac trustee. % bill nf
complaint rxhih'toi a..du>t tie o. anJ 9th
ers, 81 the above styled cause In Y,ut
iiUnors said cuu.t:
Your respon onts for answer saw Flint the
have had NO no. &c Of the pl intiG having Fl ed
his petition in the District curt Of the Tn ted
States FOR the District of rs est Virginia, "a
alleged in said Bill aud they are therefore una
Bile to either admit or deny said allegation.
Your respondents admit that the said plain
tin, about the LIST of March, I.i;, executed an
assignment to your respondents, conveying Ger.
tain property for the benefit Of his numerous
creditors.
Your respondents admit that amongst other
things embraced in said conveyance was a
farm, situate near the town of Klngwood. con
sisting Of about two hundred aud sixty two
acres, and purchased by the defendant q. n.
Orr at the price OF So 300; and that there were
other tracts land and town property, nearly
the same as set out In the bill OF complaint :
but they deny That the said farm Of 2is acres
IS worth at least the sum OF $1,000 as al
legged In said bin Of complaint rs the land
books for Preston County show that the AZ
sessod value of the same does not reach the
su,n of 81 800.
four respondent also deny that the tract of
wood Iaud OF iis nc.o3, purchased by the lie q.
iehdmt William Brown at the price of 3 %
situate four ailes from the said town OF King.
wood. is 'w.rth at least the sum Of 81 ,5aO. % as
alleged in said bill, as the iand books Of said
Preston County show the same 10 bs use cd
"t the sum Of e. In the year I,.O-tho line af
the last Z assessment OF re . cstuto ,yaeu ana
was from 20 to 80 per ceat higher 81 value "a
this county than az the line OF the SAFE az Ter
the said tru &; and thpt whel sail llui wa so
assessed at said price 10 WIS chiefly on account
OF it, value as timber hand; and oay a sh ,rt
tue before the execution ct said trust blythe
plaintiff he SO d tao thinner Oh said lana :o .i,
hrn of B'wcr.ua,tet 4 .a ksoH, OF ,ugw1od
for the sum Of 81 OJ0, being &c., iu exec. of
the toJa. vllu ttion of the same thus warrant
ing yodr re''O deats in the ayormon, ihai the
price ~ 500 was uot un er TO reat y,.ue st The
time OF tae sale of the sane to the S III ,Ll-
liam g. Brown
Your respond snts deny that the one fourth
interest IN the tract ~ 49, acre situite tbaut
four miles north of King wool Is worth nj
least Tie sum Ut 90" as alleged In SAID bill
a. the assessed value OF the who e tract W 4,
iut ai $50 in 1872 since wbch ono .,ll the
" u tnie i..a er nas been Len utl tbas shsw
ing that Ec,orc ihe reu"yI' 81 in timber. ana
when .und w.s higher IN value IN this county
than at the tine II the sale. tbe said ore fourth
interest was ut q S:l7 10 iHs.edd OF $500 a..
alleged by the plaintiT
Your respondents deny That tito updiyidel
one Ii u intcre q ia the tract OF about 1874
acres, situate OF Wolf c. els, ii. worth AT
e st ,h' sum %, Co., as "a lcgsd in said bill
as the assessed yalac Of tho whoe tract. in
1880, under tn conditions hcteintelOre ne-
TONED. was lat Sij5, ,hus placing the value of
the plaintiff said undivided one hl.f interest
at S2E 80 and this before the plaintiff had ,old
the timber OF the same for "a large sum of
money.
Your resrondelts further answering. say
| th 4 as Go the luni In Valley District belr ?
worth $3.50. as alleged IN said BIZ, they arc re.
!iabiy informed and 20 aliege that the same
was sod for about it, real value
Your RESPONDENTS deny that the house and
lot in hinswo Il. y refused by the defendant
Ida i'ruok "a widow LADY,, at the p ice OF
SlSo Is worth 800 as ahetci in id biz Of
complaint aud they also deny that another
house and lot in said town Of Kingwood. pnr-
chased 10y the fcndant william O. Brow NJ
the price Of sGis Is worth $1,000 as alleged I'm
said biz Of complaint as the two last named
properties, In 1857. TN ar the conditions here
inboiore mentioned, were assessed as a who G.
at 500, or s5iS less than thoy were sod az by
your respondents.
Your respondents also deny that the Office
aud ofhcel0t 81 p.antlH Is worth The sum OF
5000 as alleged in said bin Of complaint; the
said pr perty, under the conditions aforesaid
being valued, In $50. % $500. or 500 less than
the same was old no BY your respondents
Your respondents deby that the home of the
complainant, Consisting OF three lots incoscd
together with "a two-story BRICK residence OF
nine rooms thereon is worth at lolsf o1l. ne
alleged in ,ai1 bii Of complaint as the said
property uuder the conditions aforesaid. Dejp,
valued at but S30O0 when 30 was in good repilr.
and dosi able p ace in which To 1--we. Your
respondents here ailcge that the said home
property has received n' attention or repairs
for number OF years, aud with the exception
OF The occupation of two rooms hy tho p,l;g.lT
tho house has been practically uutenanted
since the year 1891 when the plaintin broke
housekeeping The dwoi iug aud outouudiurs
were BUILT more thm th Ity yctr ago. ard lbg
said property 40 the time OF the sale. was
hardly b shadow of its former se Z. What was
ouoc bctafilG hwH hu fur many yolrs
yielded Co., crop of lHy aad b.. beelrei for