The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-04-17

I of Mrs. Eddy and have carried on her
I business: that on account of Mrs Ed
/ dy's infirrnity these persons are bound
/ 10 give account OF all transactions un-
\ dertaken in her name and that the de-
PENDANTS have wrongfuIIy converted
I property to their own use
I To these representations the defen-
dants filed specific and detailed denial.
l declaring also that the suit was not
/ brought by the plaintiffs in good faith
but that the so-caIIed next friends
/ have been induced to loan their names
at the lnStgatiOn OF certain evil
minded persons who are furnishing
money for the prosecution of the mat
ter for their own evil purposes and to
advance their own selfish interests"
The defendants. Alfred FarIow Ira
o. Knapp. William D. johnson. Steph-
en- A Chase. Joseph Armstrong and
Edward A kimball. in their answer to
the bill of complaint. deny that Mrs.
Eddy's mental faculties are so i'm
paired by the infirmities OF age or
otherwise as to render her inca pabIe
of managing her affairs and protect
ing her property against undue in
fiuence- control or fraud of others. or
that she IS incapable Of taking charge
and mana ging the present or any other
legal proceedings They also deny she
is in charge and custody of the de-
PENDANTS, Frye and Strang. or of any
one else
The defendants say that the aIlega-
large part irnmateriaI. scandalous and
irrevelant and that they ought not to
be called on to make answer thereto,
and pray the Judgment of the court
thereon. and Defendant Armstrong de-
nfes that ne is the publisher of all the
Christian Science works. as alleged
but states that he is and has been for
a number of years the publisher of
Mrs Eddy's personal writings and that
he had periodically and fully account
ed for and turned over to her all roy
alties and profits from such pubIica-
tfonS and the other defendants admit
ting their respective connection with
the Christian Science organiza ton
deny that they have received. except
in the case of Defendant Armstrong as
above specifically set forth. any mon
eys or income belonging TO Mary Bak-
er @. Eddy or that any such income
has been controlled or retained in auv
way by them.
The defendants say that they have
no knowledge of information re-
specting the nature and extent of the
property Of Mary Baker c. Eddy. and
deny that they either individually or
collectively or in connection with any
one else have ever wrongfulIy con-
verted to their private use or other
wise misappropriated or unlawfuIIy
diverted any money or property of
Mrs Eddy's
The defendants further saw that
they believe that the bill of complaint
~ ~ " LtCsS So-Ce-4tSO next
friends" OF Mrs. Eddy in good faith
for the purpose of protecting her per
son and property They charge the
so-called next friends are such only
in name and that they have been in
duced TO loan their names for use in
the suit at the fnstigation and at the
expense OF certain evil minded per
sons not related in any way TO Mrs
Eddy or having any interest in her or
her estate, and who are furnishing
money fer the prosecution of the s11ff
for their own evil purposes and to ad-|
vance their own selfish interests
These persons. defendants aIIege- are
hostile 70 Mrs Eddy and to the re
hgious principles Of which she is the
founder and exponent
The defendants demand proof of all
the material matters complained Of
which are not specifically admitted.
and they say they ought not to make
this or any answer to this bill be-