The Birmingham age-herald., 1902-05-27
ANSWER NoN.coMMlTrAL.

ANSWER NON-COMMi AL.
 The answer filed by the Ensley Land Company is on the whole non commlttah and 1t claims to be ignorant of most of the important allegations In the blli' which 1t says it can neither admit nor deny and calls for strict proof of the same
 The answer begins by admitting the fact that compliments in the original Dill are stockholders in defendant, but 1t is not advised and neither admits nor de- nies the allegations as to defendants, Baxter, Bowran, Shook, Mccormack and Ramsay, as set forth in section three' This Is the section of the original bill which charges the defendants with wrongful1y obtaining for themselves by fraud 24o acres of the land of the Ensley Land Company without just compensa- ton and in fraud of the rights of the Ensley Land Company and of complain ants as stockholders.
 The answer admits the location of Ens- ley as town site. but 1t neither admits nor denies the allegations that $6o,OoO was expended therefor and that the debts of the company under the management of its officers. who were then officers and directors of Inc Tennessee Company, amounted to s12OoOo It neither admits nor denies the averment that at this time it was easy for defendants to have sold enough of it's land to pay off its debts without sacrificing its property. as averred in the blll. but calls upon com plainant to make strict proof thereof.
 ENHANCEMENT OF VALUES.
 It admits that the Tennessee Company determined to build steel mill at Ems ley, but 1t Is unadvised as to whether this fact became known to defendants. Bow ron, Shook, Baxter, Ramsey, Mccormack, or either. nor does 1t know whether said fact was Known to the public or It's stock holders. It admits that this determina- tion to locate "a plant did naturally in- crease the value of the land, but whether the directors could, by reason of such enhancement, have sold sufficient land to pay off the indebtedness of the company this defendant is not advised and neither nor QonleS the same.
 Defendant does not know and neither admits nor denies the allegations in sec tion nine of the bill to the effect that the defendants. Baxter, Bowron, Shook. Me Cormack and Ramsay conceived and formed a plot to obtain the property of the Ensley Land Company at grossly in- adequate prices. but calls upon the com plainant to make proof of said allegation.
 Further answering this section the de- fendant admits that the officers and di- rectors of said Tennessee company and of this defendant were substantially as set forth in said section and that they continued to hold their offices respect lively In the manner set forth In said sec tion. That whether said Mccormack and Bowron retired from their respective of- fees for the purpose of outwardly avoid- ing dealing directly with the said Ems ley Land Company for their own ad- vantage, but in order to do so In effect. without the appearance thereof, and for such purpose. and with the connivance of Baxter and Shook. they caused to be elected as their successors in office as
  pany, employees of the Tennessee com pany under the direction and control of said Mccormack. Bowron. Baxter and Shook, and that said employees so elect ed directors of defendant had no sub stantial pecuniary interest In the prop erty, assets or welfare. of said com pany. but were under the direction and control of said Mccormack. Baxter. Shook and Bowron this defendant neither admits nor denies said allega- tions, but calls for strict proof thereof.
 Answering section IA of the bill the de- fendant says that it believes 1t to be true that no steps were taken by said Shook, Bowron and Mccormack as con trolling officers and directors of the Ems ley Land Company to redeem from the said judgment in said bill of complaint set forth recovered against said Ensley Land Company.
 Defendant does not know whether any