Difference between revisions of ".MjkyMzE.MTA2Mjgw"
m (Protected ".MjkyMzE.MTA2Mjgw" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))
Latest revision as of 20:06, 4 June 2020
be abandoned but at that time no pretence was set up that this Respondent had ever promised to make any indorsement on the back of the bill of sale from the plff to this Respondent or interlineation on the face to the effect stated in the amended Bill or to any other effect This Respondent begs leave farther to state that this Respondent brought an action in detinue vs George W Bradley for one of the slaves purchased by himself of the plff Paulina some time in the year 1846 or seven he received the slave at Law and then George W Bradley filed a Bill in Chancery to enjoin the recovery of said Slave and to set up a claim to all the slaves purchased by this Respondent of the plff the Bill filed in 1847 and finally dismissed in 1848 in which suit the Plff was examined as a witness & the bill sale freely examined and yet not a pretence was made that the plff had a right to redeem the slaves by contract verbal or in writing. These suits with the testimony in them my be seen by reference to the records of this Court where they were conducted and tried extracts from which are herewith filed and marked ([blank]) and prayed to be taken as part of this answer. That this Respondent sold a portion of these slaves purchased from the pltt some time within the year 1848 to which the pltt made no objection either to this Respondent or the purchaser though he lived in the immediate neighborhood and must have Known all about the transaction Yet he set up no pretence of contract to redeem verbal or written. This Respondent heard nothing farther from the plff of his pretended right to redeem the slaves sold as aforesaid by said Plff to this Respondent until the year 1852 when the plff again set up a pretence that he had a right to redeem the slaves sold by him to this Respondent and commenced a suit An action of detinue brought for the benefit of Edward H. Bass in this Court which suit was dismissed at the spring term 1852 then this suit was brought in this Court and the Bill filed in this Cause all of which proceedings were had on a pretended contract the same set out in the original Bill which the plff alledged had been burnt. But no pretence was made that this Respondent had agreed to make any any endorsement on the Bill of Sale or interlineation lineation on its face. From Feb 1852 to shortly before the filing of the amended Bill in this cause much examination and frequent inspection of the papers in the decided suit of Bradley vs Stevens in the office of this Court and copyings of papers in that cause and examination of original to determine if copy was right amended buy the plff through his agents some time in the presence of the Clerk and sometimes in his absence; for one of these agents the action of detinue had been brought and the other had become the purchaser of one of the slaves bought of the Plff and as your Orator believes and therefore charges one or both of them were advancing the money for the prosecution of these suits and for the tender to this Respondent of the purchase money, and were by their contract with the plff to divide the slaves among themselves or nearly so. Then and not till then the plff, it is precluded, waked up to remember that this Respondent had promised him to make an endorsement on the back of the Bil sale to the effect that the plff might redeem the negroes and by ^his^ agent sent his counsel to examine and the endorsement interlineation and erasure were found. Now this Respondent believes and therefore charges that this endorsement interlineation and erasure were made between the month of January and the month of August of this year, that it was done to strengthen a desperate cause and that the plff was instructed by his agents or one of them to have this examination made through his Counsel, referred to by him, in his bill, and to make this charge contained in the amended bill. He never could have come to this act by "much thought" because this respondent avers that no such promise had ever been made by him. However these things may have occurred this Respondent avers that he purchased the the slaves about which this controversy is conducted at a full and fair price and without any conditions or reservation, that he has paid the