Evening star., 1922-04-12
.BRAWNER ANSWERS
MRS. 0YSTER|'SSU|T
Denies He. Influenced De.
ceased Dairyman or
"Poisoned His Mind"

Denying that he attempted to in
fluence George NJ. Oyster, jr.. in the
| making of a partnership agreement
or that he ever tried to poison the
| mind" of the dairyman against his
young wife, Henry N. Brawner. jr.,
| today filed answer in the District Su-
preme Court. to the suit of the youth
| full widow. Mrs. Cecile r. Oyster, to
break the will. Edwin e. Brandenbelg.
executor of the estate, also filed his
answer.
Brawner denies that he ever asked
Oyster to make him a partner in the
dairy business and tells the court
! that he in no way Influenced the
! cairyman in executing the agreement
| under which he acquired 45 per
cent interest in the business.
MIR. Brawner also takes issue with
the claim of the widow that the dairy
business Is worth million dollars.
| He states that never. in his presence,
did Mr.. Oyster place so high a valu-
alton upon the business.
Business Heavily Involved.
On the contrary" the petition con-
! tinues, this defendant says that at
the time of and for some time prior
moss was heavily involved and that
there were debts OF approximately
| $450,0oO against said business. and
that its condition at the time of said
decedents trip to Florida was such
| as to be a matter of grave concern to
the said Oyster and this defead-
ant
Mr. Brawner declares that the eX
! ecutor Of the estate did have the right
! to accept his notes in payment for
Oysters interest in the business.
which Brawner elected to purchase
TO nf a lrft !, in,
agreement.
Referring to the farm mentioned
| in the suit, Brawner answers that it
has always been regarded as a part
of the dairy business. He further
asserts that it is not worth 100000.
Mr.. Oysters partner denies that he
has endeavored to belittle or to de-
feat the legal rights of the widow
In concluding his reply to the suit.
Brawner asks the court to dismiss
him with costs.
Dealing with the personal affairs
Of the deceased dairyman and his
widow. Brawner states in his answer
as follows:
Called to Florida on Business.
This defendant is without personal
knowledge as to the domestic rela-
tions between the plaintiff and her
husband. while they were in Florida
and denies that either by long dis
tancs phone calls or by a visit to
Florida. he influenced and persuaded
George NJ. Oyster. jr. to leave the
plaintiff, but says that he was called
over the long distance phone by
George NJ: Oyster. jr.. and was asked
by the said George NJ. Oyster. jr.. to
come to Florida and consult with him,
said George NJ. Oyster. having been
told by +. c. Brandenburg that 1t
was necessary that this defendant
consult with said George NJ. Oyster
with reference to financial matters
concerning his business, there having
suddenly .arisen an emergency in con-
nection Herewith.
This defendant denies that at any
| time he influenced or persuaded the
said George NJ. Oyster, jr, to leave
the plaintiff in Florida, but says that
his errand in Florida was the busi-
| ness emergency which had arisen, and
it was advisable and necessary that
| the said Oyster should Immediately
return to Washington in connection
| Herewith"