Difference between revisions of ".MjkwNzY.MTAyNDQw"
m (Protected ".MjkwNzY.MTAyNDQw" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))
|(11 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)|
|Line 1:||Line 1:|
the , and the by the : of 19th Dec. 1838 of this Defendant, a fraud upon his , and of this : and by which he is neither legally or morally bound, as he hoped to show by the proofsIt that would take all the Negroes if not, the balance whether private or partnership were to have been , and had have taken these, and these only, this to take the average prices for his private NegroesThe . Edmund can best answer the of the bill, in to the bill of sale, this . not , and the . a view to his own and not that of the , Edmund , no move agent of the . of the .
Latest revision as of 08:42, 27 May 2021
but the truth, and the paper procured by the Pltff: of 19th Dec. 1838 of this Defendant, was a fraud practiced upon his credulity, and confidence of this Deft: and by which he is neither legally or morally bound, as he hoped to show by the proofs. It was expected that Mr Rives would take all the Negroes except Abram if not, the balance sent whether private or partnership property were to have been sold, and had Mr Rives have taken these, and these only, was this Deft to take the average prices for his private Negroes. The Deft. Edmund Rosser can best answer the allegations of the bill, in relation to the bill of sale, this Deft. was not present, and supposes the Pltt. concocted papers with a view to his own interest and not that of the firm, Edmund Rosser, was no move agent of this Deft. than of the Pltff. as shown that out by the bill in the other case, he went as an assistant, to the said Jordan; the said Pltff: as before stated was bound to take the Negroes to Mississippi, Edmund Rosser had no experience in such business, was a mere youth, the fact is, that the Pltff: as he has since heard made several attempts to rid himself of the labour and expense of the trip by employing others to perform it for him and finally employed Mr Long as shown by this Defts: bill. this Defendant, believes the Pltff: was well able to perform the trip, but if not, then it was his misfortune and should not be visited upon this Deft. This Deft: denies that any act of the Pltff: in delivering a bill of sale to Edmund Rosser made the Negroes partnership property. The contrivance of the Plaintiff in obtaining the paper of 19th Decr 1838 and practising upon the credulity of this Deft: was intended as a fraud upon the rights of this Deft: This Deft: was most anxious to close this adventure with the Pltff: after the return of Edmund Rosser, and it is strange in indeed, that the Pltff: should have declined the repeated overture to settle, as charged in this Deft's bill, if he believed there was a profit, the truth is he would not settle by reference or otherwise. This Deft received divers remittances from N. Orleans, the proceeds of sales of his individual, and the partnership negroes, whether all or no, he cannot well say, the funds being mixed up, and a heavy expence a/c to settle. It is altogether the Pltffs. fault that the whole matter was not settled up in 1839 without the expense and perplexity of two Chy suits. This Deft: has applied all the money he received correctly, and has always been ready and willing to account for it. This Deft: insists that the expenses after the Pltff: left the property, should not be equally borne, because this Deft. was entitled to the services, skill and experience of the Pltff: as his part of the contract to be done and performed, and he protests that the hire or wages of Mr. Long, and the commissions upon the