Difference between revisions of ".MjkwNjQ.MTAyMTQ1"

From Transcribe Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
[left side of page] ties in the said Trust Deed mentioned.  This Respondent believed it right, just, and honourable, that his individual debts should be paid in preference to debts due by the firm of Blakey, Rucker & Co amongst which latter this debt due the complainants, (who alledge they have paid it as security) is to be [classed?] that money having been borrowed for the use and benefit of that concerned.  This respondent finding his pecuniary situation to be uncertain and failing determined to protect his individual creditors if he could - and as the said Wm. H Twyman had from time to time loaned him money, and had rendered aid to this respondents son, and had been one of his best friends, and as Marcus D Blakey had rendered services for this respondent in Teaching school and teaching this respondent children, this respondent felt called upon to protect them from Loss and thereupon made to A R Blakey for their benefit the Deed aforesaid.  As to all the transactions in between this respondent and his co-Defendant Wm H Twyman - this respondent answering says that he has read the Answer of said Wm H Twyman filed in the cause, and concurs in the statements made therein so far as connected with this respondent, and particularly as regards the amounts loaned me, the time when loaned, the amount
+
[left side of page] ties in the said Trust Deed mentioned.  This Respondent believed it right, just, and honourable, that his individual debts should be paid in preference to debts due by the firm of Blakey, Rucker & Co amongst which latter this debt due the complainants, (who alledge they have paid it as security) is to be classed that money having been borrowed for the use and benefit of that concerned.  This respondent finding his pecuniary situation to be uncertain and failing determined to protect his individual creditors if he could - and as the said Wm. H Twyman had from time to time loaned him money, and had rendered aid to this respondents son, and had been one of his best friends, and as Marcus D Blakey had rendered services for this respondent in Teaching school and teaching this respondent children, this respondent felt called upon to protect them from Loss and thereupon made to A R Blakey for their benefit the Deed aforesaid.  As to all the transactions between this respondent and his Co-Defendant Wm H Twyman - this respondent answering says that he has read the Answer of said Wm H Twyman filed in the cause, and concurs in the statements made therein so far as connected with this respondent; and particularly as regards the amounts loaned me, the time when loaned, the amount of interest I was to pay etc.  This respondent gave to his son Angus the bond for $500 which this respondent held of Twymans with a view to enable his son to complete his profession, and thereby to enable this respondent to discharge some of his debts. But being subsequently advised, that such a disposition of the money would be considered an improper application thereof - this respondent immediately applied to his son Angus, whom he understood had received the money of Twyman, to pay the money over to this respondent, which he immediately did - This respondent thereupon informed his son that he could not go on to Philadelphia, to complete his education - in as much as he could not be furnished with money for that purpose - This respondent further answers that the said $500 has been since appropriated and applied to the payment and liquidation of other individual debts of this respondents own contracting.  This respondent denies all fraud, collusion and combination as alledged in the Bill and is ready on his part to maintain and prove the matters & things herein contained.  This respondent further answering says that his son Angus A Rucker did not go to Philadelphia, as was at first intended - & up to this time has not gone.
[right side of page] of interest I was to pay &c.  This respondent gave to his son Angus the bond for $500 which this respondent held of Twymans with a view to enable his son to complete his profession, and thereby to enable this respondent to discharge some of his debts
 

Revision as of 21:14, 9 September 2020

[left side of page] ties in the said Trust Deed mentioned. This Respondent believed it right, just, and honourable, that his individual debts should be paid in preference to debts due by the firm of Blakey, Rucker & Co amongst which latter this debt due the complainants, (who alledge they have paid it as security) is to be classed that money having been borrowed for the use and benefit of that concerned. This respondent finding his pecuniary situation to be uncertain and failing determined to protect his individual creditors if he could - and as the said Wm. H Twyman had from time to time loaned him money, and had rendered aid to this respondents son, and had been one of his best friends, and as Marcus D Blakey had rendered services for this respondent in Teaching school and teaching this respondent children, this respondent felt called upon to protect them from Loss and thereupon made to A R Blakey for their benefit the Deed aforesaid. As to all the transactions between this respondent and his Co-Defendant Wm H Twyman - this respondent answering says that he has read the Answer of said Wm H Twyman filed in the cause, and concurs in the statements made therein so far as connected with this respondent; and particularly as regards the amounts loaned me, the time when loaned, the amount of interest I was to pay etc. This respondent gave to his son Angus the bond for $500 which this respondent held of Twymans with a view to enable his son to complete his profession, and thereby to enable this respondent to discharge some of his debts. But being subsequently advised, that such a disposition of the money would be considered an improper application thereof - this respondent immediately applied to his son Angus, whom he understood had received the money of Twyman, to pay the money over to this respondent, which he immediately did - This respondent thereupon informed his son that he could not go on to Philadelphia, to complete his education - in as much as he could not be furnished with money for that purpose - This respondent further answers that the said $500 has been since appropriated and applied to the payment and liquidation of other individual debts of this respondents own contracting. This respondent denies all fraud, collusion and combination as alledged in the Bill and is ready on his part to maintain and prove the matters & things herein contained. This respondent further answering says that his son Angus A Rucker did not go to Philadelphia, as was at first intended - & up to this time has not gone.