The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1920-02-19

trust. On the contrary, the trustees acted
together and as board and they are IN
entire accord with regard to the admins
tration of the trust.
For further answer they say that in
several of the matters, where general
policy of the conduct of the trust is con-
cerned, complained of in the petition for
removal they have before taking action
consulted the attorney general of Massa-
husetts who under the laws of Massachu-
sets represents the public at large.
The trustees deny that the Trustee
John f. Moors has attended to the In
vestments and the business management
of the property of the trust. They deny
that the said Trustee Moors has left
the expenditures of the income and the
manner of disposing of the same wholly
to the discretion of Richards M. Brad
ley. The trustees act jointly in the
investment or re-investment of the funds
and in the business management of the
trust property. The expenditures of the
income are made only after consultation
between the trustees and the manner of
disposition and the policies of the trust
are determined by the two trustees act
ing together.
"a The trustees deny that hostility
has arisen between said trustees and the
benefciaries of the fund.
They deny that there is any mutual i'll
feeling as the result of the administra
ton of the trust funds. They deny that
the views of the trustees are at variance
with the objects of the trust and they
say that the views of the Trustee Brad
lev are the views of the Trustee Moors.
They deny that the Trustee Bradley or
the Trustee Moors and said beneficiaries
cannot work together in harmony. They
deny that there are conditions in exis-
| tence which pervert in any way the feel
| ings and Judgment of the Trustee Brad
| lev or the Trustee Moors, and say that
the proper administration and execution
of the trust as contemplated by the donor
and under the decree of this honorable
| court is not affected in any way by the
filing of this petition, as the trustees
recognize, as appear from their answers
heretofore filed, that many of those in
Guided in the list are not willing parties
to the proceedings and that Others have
misunderstood the provisions of the will
and that these proceedings will tend to
eliminate these Misunderstanding, and
they further recognize that as soon as
their petition for instructions now pend
/ ing and prepared to be filed in this court
are determined, that these questions OF
| policy can then be definitely decided.
The trustees further deny the allega.
tions contained in the nth paragraph OF
1.-THE bill of particulars of hostility be
tween the Trustee Bradley and the bene
fieiaries both direct and indirect. They
ldeny that it has been constantly and
gradually increasing for several years
/ They deny that any such hostility exists
and has extended to the community il
general They deny that any such hos
tility has extended to charitable and re
lief organizations working for the amel
loration of the condition of the poor ant
disabled persons in Brattleboro. On tn,
contrary, they say that they have beer
cooperating in accord with both of tn,
charitable or benevolent organization
in Brattleboro and that one of them ha
~~"ssly by vote denied such lack o
harmony. And without waving any o
the above they say if there is hostilit,
in the town it has been fostered AM
stirred up by the petitioners and thei
agents, and even this is not so great a
it is attempted to make. it appear in tn
petition for removal for many of thos
J whose names are included have indicates
/ to the trustees or their agents their en-
: tire satisfaction with the arrangement
: made for them by the trustees.
p. For further answer to the petitio
: and bill of particulars filed thereunde
: the trustees deny each and every ale
; CATION therein contained as especially a
: if each were set forth and denied.
26. And for further answer the trus
, tees say that the petition should be dis
= missed on the ground that it is multi
: farious in that it includes an action TO