Evening star., 1901-04-16
DEFENDANTS FILE ANSWER
QUESTION AS TO ALLEGED IN
SOLvENCY OF III. o. TOwLEs.
Denial Made and Cross Bill Filed
Allegations Regarding Trust
Deed.

An answer has been made to the bill OF
complaint which was filed the Sd instant by
Charles c. Duncanson against Henry o.
Towles and his wife, seeking to foreclose
deed of trust executed by Mr.. Towles and
his wife December 3, 1899, to secure Mr..
Duncanson in the sum of about $500 al
legged to be due upon certain promissory
notes upon which the names of Gilbert b.
Towles, Henry o. Towles Zenas c. Robbins
and c. G. Bryan appeared as makers or
indorsers. The bill alleged that the notes
were still unpaid, and that no interest had
been paid upon them. and that the taxes
upon the property conveyed were still due,
and that while Henry o. Towles was SOL
vent at the time said trust was executed,
he has since become insoVent. 1t also
states that in consequence of the recording
of this trust bankruptcy proceedings had
been instituted against Henry O. Towles by
certain alleged creditors. Upon this bill a
rule was issued upon Henry o. Towles and
wife to show cause why receiver should
not be appointed for the real estate en-
braced within the trust.
Henry O. Towles and wife yesterday,
through their attorney. Walker c. Gle
phane, filed their answer and also filed cross
bill, in which they deny that Mr.. Towles
is insolvent and state that his assets are
far in excess of his liabilities. They ad-
nit the execution and delivery of the trust
Mr. Towles was sick at his residence and
unable to attend to business matters; that
MIR. Duncanson, who had been a lifelong
friend of Mr.. H. o. Towles, called and Of
fered to assist him in Strengthening out
his financial troubles, and suggested that
Mr. Towles. Mr.. Robbins and Mr. Gilbert
B. Towles should place their property in
trust with him Ouncanson) in order to
satisfy the claims of the creditors; that Mr.
Duncanson requested Mr. ToWies not to
let any lawyer have anything to do with
it; that while Mr.. Towles had this proposi-
ton under consideration, and while he was
still i'll and unable to appreciate the legal
consequences Of his acts, Mr.. Duncanson
called upon him with notary public and
presented for his signature a paper which
ne said was merely preliminary paper
incident to the placing of the property of
himself, Gilbert B. Towles and Mr. Rob
pins In trust to him (Duncanson) as trus-
tee, and that it was to protect Mr. Henry
" IoWleS against the other indorsers upon
the notes referred to; that he stated posi-
lively that the paper would never be
placed upon record. Under these circum-
stances, the cross bill states, Mr.. Towles
ana his wife executed the paper not know
ing that 1t was deed of trust, and that
the notary public did not explain the true
nature or the paper to them and did not
take the acknowledgment of Mrs ToWles
separate and apart from her husband, as
the law requires; that Mr.. Duncanson i'm
med1ateiy thereafter placed the trust upon
record, after which it became impossible.
1or MIN to effect any settlement with the
alleged creditors "
The cross bill further states that all of
the notes mentioned in the deed of trust
are void, most of them because they hsvs
been chemically altered by Gilbert B.
Iowles after Henry o. Towles' indorse-
ment, and that Henry o. Towles had no
such was the case
1t is further averred in the cross bill
that the description of one of the notes al
ieged to be secured under the deed of trust
mao Deen inserted after the trust was ex-
ecuted. The cross bill further states that
1allure to pay taxes should not be con-
sldered as ground for foreclosing the
trust or having receiver appointed. be-
cause -hr. Duncanson himself had stricken
out from the printed form of deed Of tr,st
which was used the provision for sale for
non-payment of taxes