Betts et al. v. Betts

to live with hime at this place- upon the mention of the subject to her she expressed some reluctance to comeing and expressed great desire that he negroes herein before named should be secured to her by respondent or to her Daughter the wife of said John Wellborn, upon which respondent remarked to her friend and which was made known to her, that he had never for a moment desired more than the use of the said negroes during his life= and that he had voluntarily proposed a few years ago to settle them upon her as more particularly herein named, but she refused to accept the same upon the terms proposed- That during the eight days he remained iwht her as named he used all possible argument and every method of persuasion he could possibly muster, with the aid of friends to induce her to come to Tuskegee and live with him; to all of which she turned a deaf ear, absolutely refusing to come to Tuskegee event o see the place much less to live with hime, she for a time seemed some what disposed to come to this place to see it and belives she would have done so, but for the interferrence of others, she finally refused aboslutely to come, and said to Respondent that she would stay where she was, that respondent could live at Tuskegee and come to see her when he chose to do so; and that she would treat respondent well when he visited her, respondent upon this attempted to remonstrate with her, upon the impropriety and disgrace necessarily attending such a cours, referred her to the formere life of respondent and to the fact that he had been temperate and had ever treated her kindly which he says is true, and was by her admitted to be true; he further reasoned with her as to the then exhistance in part of the causes which compelled respondent to leave Barour and that he was determined not to live in Barbour Count as before named, but all of respondents arguments proved unavailing, she persisted in her determination not to come to Tuskegee to live with respondent neither to go with him ot any place other than where she now lives, at which place respondent does not intend to live at as a settled home but would willingly spend the remnant of his days with Complainant at any place where Complainant

might be pleased and satisfied to remain, Tuskegee or elsewhere except in Barbour County Ala.

Further anwering saith that the Horse which he recd by his wife he sent to Florida by an Agent with other Horses to be sold and was sold, but not for the sum named that he does not know what sum was received for said horse but to the best of his recollection about eighty Dollars, and the money used by him for his family purposes- has also controled the negroes from the time named up to the 5th day of March A.D. 1843; denies that the same was used without the assent of Complainant and saith that she expressed no dissent to respondent whatever, to the use of said property to the purposes to which the same were applied by him; Denies that he has at any time held or regarded the property named as the seperate property of Complainant. Denies that the same has been her seperate property since their marriage. Denies that said property has ever been regarded by Complainants family, her connections & friends as the seperate property of Complianant. Denices that said property was so regarded by Complainants father or her Brother Alexander Walker the Trustee named. That respondent at no time after his marriage heard of any seperate claim of said property by Complainant until some time after the death of her Father, to wit, some time in the year 1836Admits that Alexander Walker did the Trustee named did at one time pretent in a communication to respondent that said property was the sepearte property of his wife the complianant, but saith that afterwards, to wit, in the year A.D. 1838 the aid Alexander Walker admitted to respondent that he had been misinformed in the matter and that the same was not the seperate property of respondent not pretending that there had been any oversight or mistake in drawing said instrument.

Denies that he at any time up to 1836 understood that Jacob Ann & Beck were claimed by complainant as her seperate property free from his marital right- and saith that since the delivery of the same to him, he has at all times had posession and regarded the same as his own property. he further saith that he has been informed and believes the information true that said three negroes Jacob, Ann & Beck were given to complainant & Nelson her former husband one or two years or more before the execution of said declaration of intention

and immediately upon the reconciliation of Complainants Father with her marriage, that said property was given unconditionally and without any restrictions or limitations as to seperate property and that the same were in Complainant's posession at the time of the Execution of said declaration by Complaintant's Father, and that he believes said instrument was intended to prevent Nelson from getting or controling said property, says that he has before answered as to all the notice he had of said declaration- Denies that the other negroes named were given to Complainant- Denies that he at any time understood the gift of them as being to Complainant's seperate use- Denies that before the marriage, or at any time subsequent; or at any time; that he agreed with Complainant that she might hold as her seperate Estate the property she then had or might afterwards get by her Father- and saith that said statements are false: that no such agreement or proposition for any such agreement was at any time made known to respondent. saith that he received said proeprty as his own. that before his marraige said Moses Walker informed respondent- who was there posessed of good property of temperate and industrious habits and had no child nor children that he property he would give Complainant in marriage should be unimcumbered and subject to his marital rights-

Respondent further saith that at the time he intermarried with Complainant and at the time of the delivery to him of the negroes as before named he had not heard of any former gift of said three negroes Jacob, Ann & Beck neither did he hear anything of the same until some time after his unfortunate marriage with Complainant, unfortunate because respondent believes her to have been the means of reducing him so near to poverty- that he has to the best of his skill & ability, in good faith, made every honest effort, in his power to make money and accumulate property and to induce her to cease her wayward course and often urged as a reason unless she did that we should come to nothingto which she has often answered that she did not care if we did-

Respondent further answers that she was in the habit of taking respondents money, that at one time, to wit, a short time before the death of her Father in 1836 she took from respondent one hundred Dollars which she said she intended sending to her Father to replace the one hundred Dollars given him by her father as before named, but does not know what she done with the money- that she at divers times has taken from respondent other sums of money amounting in the aggregate to about hundred dollars not appropriated for her dressing or any other family use- those forming an extra charge on respondent, at one time prior to 1843 he knew of her having $200 in cash. heard of her having some time after in 1843 and exchanging for specie four hundred Dollars all of which sums and more he believes were taken from respondent which he here names by means of accouting in some respoects for his embarrased situation-

Further answering saith that on the 10th of March A.D. 1843 that he was indebted to a considerable amount that he did not at that time admit the indebtedness to Brown & Brannon- that he does not now admit any indebtedness to Complainant, never did, never will, believing as he firmly does that if complainant had discharged her duty as she could and ought to have done that Complainant and respondent would now have been living happily together and in good circumstances in life.

Denies that he at any time made any conveyance to respondent Gunn or to any other person with the intent to hinder or delay any creditor whatever and saith that said charge is wholly false and without foundation. But saith that on the 10th day of March A.D. 1843 fo rthe purpose of insuring the early payment ofhis debts he entered into a contract with his co-defendant Gunn, by which he executed the original deed named and referred in said Bill of Complaint as Exhibit B. that before and at the time of the Execution of said deed, that he believed and so stated to said Gunn that one thousand Dollars would be sufficient to pay off all his just debts, which sum was required without delay, and which sum of money respondent had not, but in which statement neither

the claim of the said Jackson, Brown or Brannon were included and that these were no cause pending as he believes at that time in favor of Jackson, and believed that with the testimony he could introduce, that no recovery could be had against him in favor of either Brown or Brannon. that he so informed respondent Gunn, and that he now believes said recoveries were had against him in consequene of his inability to attend Court with the evidence in his defence- he says that said deed was fairly and bona fide made in good faith upon valuable consideration, without fraud upon his own part, and that he is confident that there were no fraud on the part of defendant Gunn; Denies that said Deed referred to as Exhibit B. embraced the entire estate or property of respondent with the exception charged in said bill, and saith that said Deed did not convey more than one half of his personal property. that respondent Gunn was not familiar with respondents indebtness; and respondent admits that they were much more than he himself supposed they were. that he now finds that his liabilities were much greater than he then supposed them to be at the time of Executing said deed. That his contract with the said George W. Gunn was to pay to respondents debts the sum of one thousand Dollars among which he believes was the debts named the Solomon or Taylor debts. the Robinson or McCoy debt- one due the Branch Bank at Montgomery, Dector's King. Dunn & Crawford's accounts for medical services and several other small demands.

Said Gunn did not bind himself neither was he under obligation to pay either of said demands named in said Bill Respondent again saith that there was no fraudulent intent in the Execution of said Deed to said Defendant Gunn, that since the Execution of the same; the said defendant Gunn has paid towards the debts due by respondent in complyance with his contract, the several debts herein before named as he is informed and believes, to wit, the Solomon or Taylor debt, the Robinson or McCoy debt. the Bank debt, the accounts of Doctors King. Dunn & Crawford