Betts et al. v. Betts

far as he now recollects and belives until as hereinafter stated in answer to the fourteenth section, and in the manner and under the circumstances herein stated to which he now refers as an answer to every portion of Complaints Bill touching on concerning the information of respondent concerning a claim to seperate property: Denies that complainants Father, at any time subsequent to the marriage between complainant and respondent Betts or for some considerable time anterior thereto understood that any instrument he had at any time excecuted would in any manner secure to complainant any property free from the marital rights of her husband the respondent Betts- Denies that such was the desire or intention of said Moses Walker about the time of said marriage-

Further answering upon information and belief, that the said Moses Walker about the time stated in said bill & at a time when he was unwell in view of the unfortunate relations between his daughter the said Complainant and her then husband Ambrose Nelson who had then seperated from her and before complainant was divorced from the said Nelson: with the intention of preventing said Nelson from exerciseing any control over the property he had given complainant in marriage as well that she might receive under his will-executed some declaration or instrument in writing to this end-but for no other or further purpose-and respondent further believes that said Moses had no desire to create in said Complainant any seperate estate after her intermarriage with Respondent Betts-says that said Walker was a farmer but possessed good sence and sound judgment.

6 Respondant further answering saith that he knows nothing of his own knowledge concerning the matters stated in the sixth section of said Bill: but knows that after the Marriage between Complainant and Respondent Betts, to wit, about December A.D.1834. that said Betts went to the County of Burke and returned with the negroes named in said section- He has always since that time and now understands and believes that said negroes were not given to complainant as her seperate property as stated in said bill, but to Respondant Betts and fully under his control and subject to his marital rights,that at no

time prior to the exhibition of said Bill- did respondent understand that either of the slaves named in said bill had been delivered to Complainant under the provisions of any wiriting or before the date of said declaration of intention set forth by Complainant- But now states that he is informed and believes the information true that soem few months after the marriage betwen Complainant and her former husband Mr. Nelson and before the seperation between complainant & Nelson that Jacob, Ann & Beck were given in marriage to complainant not as her seperate property or under the provisions of said declaration of intention- but without writing subject to the marital rights of her husband the said Nelson- and being anterior to the execution of said declaration of intention-

Does not know but admits that Jane is the issue of Beck since the marriage between complainant and Betts- that before the filing of said bill he had heard that Complainant's father at the time he gave said negroes to respondent Betts also gave to him a horse- but never heard of the One Hundred Dollars as he now recollects - but is informed that the same were given to Betts about December A.D. 1834-

7. Respondent says it is true that Complainant and Elisha Betts were married in the year A. D. 1837 in the State of Georgeia not at Complianant's residence as stated in said bill- but in the County of Morgan at the House of her uncle John Walker where Complainant and her father were on a visit- says he does not know as to complainant's residence in said Chancery District, but is informed and believes that during the absene of complainant from home for several months that respondent Betts settled in said District, to wit, in 1837 & that she has since continued to reside in the same.

8. That Respondent does not know as to the intention of his co-defendant Betts in bearing Complainant in 1843. does not know that he has continued absent on the contrary he is informed and believes that defendant Betts has not continued absent as charged but that in December last he was at his residence in said District and remained several days with Complainant as his wife- that about the time Defendant Betts left complainant in

1843 these were causes which as Respondent believes demanded his absence and which continued until in the Spring of 1845 or about that time- seperate and apart from the conduct of Complainant of which Complianant was congnizant- further answering saith that he has seen letters written by his co-defendants Betts addressed to Complainant informing her of his desire that she should come to & reside in Tuskegeee Macon County with him &c.&c. That he does not know that Complainant received any of them but is informed that she did receive one of said letters= further he saith that defendant Betts some time in the year latter part of the year 1845 left- Macon for Barbour County- and he is informed and belives he did go to Barbour & remain some days with complainant- further answering he is informed and believes that Complainant did refuse to go with defendant Betts or to live with him at any other place than where she now lives

9. Answering saith knows nothing of his own knowledge of the sale of the Horse named in said Bill but is informed and belives that said Horse was sold for only some seventy or eighty Dollars= that the money and negroes named in said Bill, have been applied to the use of the family of said Betts and not to his use as stated in said Bill as he is informed and believes as well to the use of Complainant as to the use of his daughter prior to her marriage as to the use of said Betts.

10. Further answering saith that the conversions of property charged in the tenth section of said Bill as he is informed were not without complainant's consent as charged but with her knowledge and assent and without as respondent believes any right on her part to dissent-

11- Denies pon information and belief that said property has ever been regarded as the seperate property of Complainant as charged- and in the same manner denies that Co-defendant Betts knew anything of any such construction of a declaration of intention as charged and and saith that said Walker as he is informed & believes the information true knew that no instrument Executed by him would secure to Complainant any property

to her seperate use. That he at no time heard of any claim by Complainant of Jacob, Ann & Beck as her seperate property until as herein named- that he never until by said Bill was informed that those three slaves were in a different situation from the others named or that they were given prior to the others- but he now answers that he is informed and believes that said three negroes were given to Complainant or A. Nelson her former husband prior to the Execution of said declaration of intention and before the abandonment by said Nelson of Complainant- that all of said slaves be ever understood to have been given to co-defendant Betts in marriage & after the marriage- that he at no time understood from said Betts, that he considered said property or any part thereof the seperate property of Complainant. On the contrary Respondent states that he has ever since the year 1837 understood and believed said slaves to be the property of his co-defendant Betts- that before he was informed by said bill he had never heard of any antinuptial agreement such as is stated in the Eleventh section of the Bill between complainant and Respondent Betts- that he is informed and believes that no such agreement was made or mentioned- he believes if the same had been proposed that he would have been informed of the same- he at the time being on terms of intimacy with the parties or their near relatives- He again does not believe that any such agreement or proposition was made, because respondent Betts was at the time of said Marriage without children, of good habits, temperate, industrious and energetic in business and was at the time worth about seven times as much property as that he got by Complainant in marriage as before named-

That Complainant at the time had a girl child, the present wife of Solon Wellborn who now assumes to act as next friend of Complainant- that he is informed and believes that the property then owned by said Betts was known to be most wholly the fruit of the joint industry of himself and former wife- He admits that the respondent Betts was somewhat indebted in March A.D. 1843- but says he was not informed of any indebtedness to his co-defendants, Jackson Brown, Brannon or complainant in March A.D. 1843. that the respondent Betts informed this repondent, that there was a suit in the name of Brown for the use

of Harrison and one for the use of Brannon, but at the same time informed Respondent of some proofs that he could make in those cases with which no recovery could have been had and further that there was no danger of any recovery in either case which information respondent believed to be true in all things- having lond known Defendant Betts as a man of Honor- in whose statements full confidence could be given, and which he has ever and still believes him to be and has ever and does now believe that said recoveries were had because of the absence of Defendant Betts and his testimony and not because of the justice or equity of said claims.

Denies most positively that there was any intention on the part of this respondent to dlay or hinder any creditors of co-defendant Betts- in the receipt by him of the deed named. that he is informed believes and here states that the defendant Betts did not at any time execute any conveyance to this respondent or any other person with an intent to hinder delay or defraud his creditors or any of them as charged and saith that the charge in said Bill of a fraudulent intent in the Executive of a deed to this respondent is wholly untrue and as he belives was known to be untrue by Complainant. He says that respodent Betts on the 10th day of March A.D. 1843 did Execute. seal and deliver to this Respondent upon a fair and valuable consideration a deed to certain property which deed was Executed and delivered to this Respondent upon a fair and valuable consideration, that the same was made bona fide and in good faith without fraud as he believes on the part of Defendant Betts, and he knows without fraud on his own part, a copy of which is annexed as he believes to Complainant's Bill as Exhibit-B.

But respondent states that it is not true as stated in said Bill, that the property conveyed in said deed, embraced the Entire Estate of said Betts connected with the small pittance left with complainant on thw contrary he saith that said deed did not convey to this respondent a present interest in more than about the one half part of the Estate and property of defendant Betts- Denies that he knew at the time of the acceptance of said deed that the same with the small pittance left with Complainant was