The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1917-06-27
Deny Many Statements
Made Concerning Halifax
Land Deals
READY TO ACCOUNT
FOR EXPENDITURES
Charge that Plaintiff Robinson Had
Trouble with Wife and Didn't Want
Her to Know About Transactions -
Want Pay for Services.

Another chapter has been written in
the suit Of Alfred b. Robinson of New
York against DR.. Edward :. and Eliz-
abeth w. Niles Of Boston and Halifax.
the latter owners of Maplehurst Lodge.
which IS conducted as a summer hotel
MIR. Robinson recently entered suit to
recover from Or. and Mrs. Niles prop
critics in Halifax which he alleged had
been purchased with his money in the
name Of DIR. Niles and which DIR. Niles
had refused to turn over to him and on
ONE of which DIR. 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 f. T.. Waterman to hear it dur.
ing the present term Of court in Ben
uington county.
The new chapter appeared in the Of
lice of County Clerk +. d. T.. stowe
Yesterday i'm the form Of an answer
TO the allegations of Mr.. Robinson. n
demurrer To the suit. and a cross suit.
The voluminous document is from the
office of Ryder X Graham of Bellows
Fails
Ina the answer DR.. and Mrs. Niles adj
NIT that an oral agreement was entered
into sept. ], 1918, between plaintiff
and defendants to buy certain lands in
Halifax with money furnished by the
plaintiff, but deny that the properties
20 he purchased were to be for the ben.
eft of the plaintiff, but for the common
benefit, profit and advantage OF the
plaintiff and defendants.
II is admitted that Mrs Niles was
anxious to have the plaintiff buy ad-
joining lands, in part to protect the de
PENDANTS and in part tor the benefit OF
the plaintiff by reason Of certain priv
il"ges that would be available to both.
II was orally agreed that the lands
should be bought with money furnished
.hy Robinson, and it is claimed that at
the time when the matter was up for
diset'SsiSn Rohinsdn said that lie 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 +. =
Niles and should continue to be used
and held by the defendants in connec.
]
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
| lace, make Improvements on other par
cells, build roads and trails and iron
towers as attractions for guests at Ma
! plehurst Lodge, owned by Mrs. Nile.
as summer hotel in Halifax.
! The answer claims that after the i'm
/ provemcnts stipulated had been mad,
| a corporation was to be formed ant
then the properties of the litigant,
were TO hc pooled and divided on tn,
basis of their value i'm capital stock OF
the corporation.
The original suit claimed that DR.
! Niles had brought about the agreemcn
that the properties were to be placed il
his name on the ground that he wa
better known in Halifax and could ge
better terms. This is denied in tn
answer. and it is claimed that the onl,
reason for this arrangement was tina
Dr. Niles was i'm better position to ia
cilitatc the development and Tromp
delivery to the proposed corporation o
the newly acquired lands. and. tn
answer SAYS in that regard the plain
titl told of having trouble with hi
wife and that he did not wish her t
know Of, or be party to, the transaC
tiouS contemplated.
The purchase of the six parcels O
land named in the original suit is a(
mitt2d hHt il is denied that all cor
tomplatcd were bought, for ncgotif
tions For the so.called Wordcn place fo
5000 were in progress but the plainti
had failed to furnish the cash for thi
purchase, in violation of the allege
oral agreement.
The fact that oral and written 4,
mands for the transfer of the prope
\ ties had been made is admitted, but
is set forth that no claim is made tha
e the oral agreement had been term
mated and the only reason set forth fl
the desire and demand for the transft
of the properties is that it was nece
Sarr, if the plaintiff was to oct none
from his wife for the completion of h
oral contract. No offer has ever bee
! made to pay the defendants for bill
contracted and they have charges f,
services, damages to property and OF
er things. it is stated.
The answer concludes with the stat
ment that they refused to comply wit
the demand because of a violation
the terms Of the agreement on the pa
Of the plaintiff and that he had not O
fcrcd or rendered pay for services l
tho defendants rendered in connectiC
with the purchase and developments
the properties.
! Denial is made that the defendan
" made use Of the properties purchase
= with the money of the plaintiff exec
- for purposes of providing for improv
; ments The placing Of mortgage
!, one piece of property by the defen
~ ants is admitted, but it is denied tn
it was without the knowledge of t
plaintiff 1t is claimed that the plai
tiff was notified that suits were pen
ing and instituted for payment of il
provements made and that if money
:. meet the demands was not forthcomil