Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1917-06-29
ANSWER FILED BY
DR.. AND MRS. NILES
Deny Many Statements Concern
ing Halifax Land Deals
Charge that Plaintiff Robinson Had
Trouble with Wife and Didn't Want
Her to Know About Transactions


the latter owners of Maplehurst Lodge,
which is conducted as a summer hotel. |
Mr.. Robinson recently entered suit to
recover from Dir. and Mrs. Niles prop
critics in Halifax which he alleged had
been purchased with his money in the
name of DR.. Niles and which DR.. Niles
had refused to turn over to him and on
one of, which DR.. Niles had placed a
mortgage. The case was to have been
heard last week, but was postponed in
definitely because of the inability of
Judge E. l.. Waterman to hear it dur
ing the present term of court in Ben.
nington county.
The new chapter appeared in the Of
fee of County Clerk +. d. T.. Stowe
Tuesday in the form of an answer
to the allegations of Mr.. Robinson, a
demurrer to the suit, and cross suit,
The voluminous document is from the
Office of Ryder & Graham of Bellows
Falls.
In the answer DR.. and Mrs. Niles ad.
NIT that an oral agreement was entered
into Sept !, 1915 between plaintiff
and defendants to buy certain lands in
Halifax with money furnished by the
plaintiff, but deny that the properties
eft of the plaintiff, but for the common
benefit, profit and advantage of the
plaintiff and defendants.
1t is admitted that Mrs. Niles was
anxious to have the plaintiff buy adj
joining lands, in part to protect the de-
PENDANTS and in part for the benefit Of
the plaintiff by reason of certain priv
ileges that would be available to both.
hnN l,n 1o, L.
should be bought with money furnished
by Robinson, and it is claimed that at
the time when the matter was up for
discussion Robinson said that he had
money to invest in real estate in Hall
fax and agreed that the title to all of
the real estate it was proposed to pur-
chase should be in the name of f. S.
Niles and should continue to be used
and held by the defendants in connec-
ton with their hotel business.
The plaintiff, it is alleged in the
answer, was to provide funds and the
defendants with the funds were to pro-
vide the necessary materials and labor
TO construct a building on the Fish
place, make improvements on other par
cells, build roads and trails and iron
towers as attractions for guests at Ma
plehurst Lodge, owned by Mrs. Mica
as a summer hotel in Halifax.
The answer claims that after the i'm.
provements stipulated had been made
a corporation was to be formed and
then the properties of the litigants
were to be pooled and divided on the
basis of their value in capital stock of
the corporation
The original suit claimed that Dr.
L. IL. = -
that the properties were to be placed in
his name on the ground that he was
better known in Halifax and could get
better terms. This is denied in the
answer, and it is claimed that the only
reason for this arrangement was that
DR.. Niles was in better position to ia
cilitate the development and prompt
delivery to the proposed corporation of
the newly acquired lands, and, the
answer says, in that regard the plain
| tiff told of having trouble with his
wife and that he did not wish her to
know of, or be a party to, the transac-
| tons contemplated.
The purchase of the six parcels of
land named in the original suit is ad-
mitted, but it is denied that all con
templated were bought, for negotia-
tions for the so-called Worden place for
5000. were in progress but the plaintiff
had failed to furnish the cash for this
purchase, in violation Of the alleged
oral agreement.
The fact that oral and written de-
mands for the transfer of the proper
ties had been made is admitted, but it
is set forth that no claim is made that
the oral agreement had been termi
mated and the only reason set forth for
the desire and demand for the transfer
of the properties is that it was ncces
sary, if the plaintiff was to get money
from his wife for the completion of his
oral contract. No offer has ever been
made to pay the defendants for bills
contracted and they have charges fol-
services, damages to property and 9th
er things, it is stated.
The answer concludes with the state
ment that they refused to comply with
the demand because of a violation OF
the terms of the agreement on the part
of the plaintiff and that he had not of
fered or rendered pay for services by
the defendants rendered in connection
with the purchase and developments OF
the properties.
Denial is made that the defendants
made use of the properties purchased
with the money of the plaintiff excep
for purposes of providing for improve
ments The placing of a mortgage oil
one piece of property by the defend
ants is admitted, but it is denied tina
it was without the knowledge of thu
plaintiff. 1t is claimed that the plain
tiff was notified that suits were pend
ing and instituted for payment of i'm
provements made and that if money t.
meet the demands was not Forthcoming
r Mt once a mortgage would be necessar!
and the money thus obtained was use'
to nav claims for labor and material
and that not all of the money so oh
tanned has been expended and the dc
PENDANTS are ready to account for it all
The demurrer sets forth that thu
agreement is not alleged to have beer
in writing; that it is inconsistent; i
4 insufficient in facts and that the plain
tiff has not offered to protect the de
= PENDANT for pay for his services.
D The cross bill sets forth that tn
= plaintiff has failed to carry out tn
0 terms of the oral agreement and tina
= the defendants have suffered irrepa
r rabe loss and damage as the result