The Daily Missoulian. [volume] (Missoula, Mont.) 1904-1961, 1909-08-29

"
yesterday filed an answer in the dis
trict court. Specific denial is made
as to the accusation concerning the
Withholding OF the firms books from
the plaintiff in the suit and to the
statement that Mr.. Singer had con-
tributed more than his share tn the
firms business success The most
important portion of the answer is
however, contained in the following
section seven:
The Answer.
Defendant denies that he has not
treated and does not now treat the
plaintiff as "A co-partner, or that he
has at any time failed 10 act i'm good
faith with his said partner. the plain
tiff in this action, or that the de
PENDANT has wrongfuliy or otherwise
or at all obtained any advantage over
the plaintiff. as such partner: and the
defendant denies that the books Of
accounts OF ana for said concern have
been and still are in the control and
custody of the defendent. or that de-
PENDANT refuses plaintiff access to
said books Of account. and defendant
alleges the fact Ia be that said plain
tiff has at all times had. and now
has the custody Of said books of ac-
count. and all of them belonging to
said firm, and that the plaintiff has
mt all times had access to them. and
that they are now in his custody and
under his control. and have been at all
times since the formation of said
partnership; defendant denies that he
or any other amounts or sums at all.
: of the funds belonging Ia said firm
or has failed and refused. or still fails
or refuses to account for the same tn
plaintiff or to the firm: defendant de-
MES that he has concealed or stlll
conceals said books of account and
declines to present them for exam
ination or inspection of the plaintiff.
but on the contrary defendant alleges
as above set forth. that said books o.
account are now In the custody of the
plaintiff: that he has access to them
mt all times. and has had the right
and privilege To examine and inspect
them Mt any and all times since the
formation III said partnership: de-
PENDANT denies that he declines and
refuses to work for said firm or to
devote his time. energy and substance
to the welfare of the concern. and
defendant denies that for many years
last the plaintiff has been doing all
the work. but admits that the de-
PENDANT did the principal part of the
collecting for said firm. but denies
that he collected firm money and de
posited the same in his own name.
-b.x... rs
Is unable to keep books of ac-
count. or To do commercial busins IS:
that his ability is limited 10 manual
labor. and for that reason and that
reason only was the collecting of
monies. the payment of the men and
the commercial end of the business
of said firm left to the defendant: de-
fendent denies that instead of deVotns
his time. work. money and substance
! To the business of said concern, the
defendant has been in politics, and
away from the active engagement of
the affairs OF the CO partnership. except
a. harcinafte" n lated and set forth.
and defendant denies that the funds
and proceeds or any Of them of the
said firm have gone for political pur-
poses. and defendant denies that
monies received from the Chicago,
Milwaukee 4 st. Paul Railway COM
pany Of Montana. for right of-way
over and through some of the lands
hereinbefore mentioned. We're taken
and received by the defendant. and by
him unacconnted for. or that they
We're taken or received by the defen-
dant at all: on the contrary defendant
alleges that the plaintiff took and re-
ceived said money from the clerk of
the district court, giving his receipt
therefor. anu signing the firm nam.
Tor said money. and that he converted
said money to-wit the sum of 81 200 To
his own Use and benefit: that this de
fsndant never received "A cent of said
money but that all Of IL MAS paid to
plaintiff and by him appropriated To
his own individual use and benefit:
that said Plaintiff has never account
ed for said sum of si.2a0 by him re-
ccivad from the Chicago. Milwaukee
4 ST. Paul Hallway company, for
right -of-way over and through the
lands belonging to this plaintiff and
this defendant: defendant admits
that lots numbered IL and 20 of block
.. Higgins addition tn the city of Mis-
snula were purchased by this defen-
dant at cost Of about s.. 900. and
that deed therefore Was taken in the
name Of defendants Wife, but de-
PENDANT denies that the said lots were
purchased with any of the money.
funds or assets of the said co-rartner-
ship. but alleges that said property
MAS purchased l,y this defendant AS
n home fer defends nt's family. and
Mas Purchased solely and entirely with
the individual funds and money al
this defendant: defendant denies that
he has taken. ar extracted more than
his ne-half of the profits of said
business and denies that he fails or
refuses In account for the same. hut
admits that there Is no unity of pur-
pose. partnership or common effors
on the part Of the parties hereto, and
that by reason thereof the interests of
the said business. and tina parties
hereto. demand that the said eo-part-
nership be dissolved.
Further Deniais.
Further dcnials concern the charges
made by Mr.. Singer to the effect that