Preston and Others v. George W. Coons, Administrator of the Estate of Milton Duty, et al.
View original image: Page  207
[missing figure]

but from the best of his knowledge and information
and belief, he believes they are not liable to this
defendant, or to said estate of said duty for
any moneys belonging to said estate, nor for
any negligence in conducting the said respective adminis
trations - and this defendant says that it is a
matter of law as to which he is not informed
whether the administration in MississippiMississippi is
ancillary to that of this defendant in MissouriMissouri or
not - that he does not know what the laws of
MississippiMississippi are in relation to that
but insists that such is not the law, and that
such are not the facts in relation thereto as in
said bill alleged.
and he further says that he
has used all proper and reasonable diligence
to ascertain whether any moneys have been could have
been collected at any time by the administrator
of said Estate in MississippiMississippi
on any notes or demands in favor of said
Estate against persons in said last mentioned
state, and that from the best of his knowledge
and belief no moneys have, or could
have been collected on any of said
claims. This defendant does not know whether
the two complainants, HarryHarry and Henderson have
at twenty one said the filing of the original bill or
not, nor, but believes that, that one negro
child, has since been born, but whether his name
JamesJames or not he is not informed.
This defendant
does not know whether the claims of John & WilliamWilliam
henderson are fraudulent and unjust or not,
but believes they are just - and says that they were
established by a judgement of a Court of

View original image: Page  208
[missing figure]
record, and properly defended against and by due
process of law established and allowed in
the St LouisSt Louis Probate Court - and also in like manner the claim of the President
Directors & of the Planter's Bank of MississippiBank of Mississippi , which this defendant believes to be just, and not fraudu
lent but he does not know whether the
last mentioned claim is or ever was the property
of said John & Willam Henderson or not, but
insists that in as much as he has heretofore owned
to a portion of the charge as to the last mentioned
claims, and in as much has they have
been already adjudicated in a court of competent
jurisdiction, that he
cannot be compelled to answer further to said
last mentioned charge, because it is not the subject matter of a supplemental bill -
and because he denies all knowledge
of any fraud or injustice in respect
to the establishment of said claims - this
defendant does not know whether Heywood
Boyette who has established a claim for four
hundred & forty one 32/100 dollars against said
Estate was security for said H. Fernandis or not;
but says that his claim was legally established
allowed in the Probate Court, and is
just to the best of his knowledge & belief, and
insists that the judgement of said court cannot
now be reversed, so as to affect the rights of this
defendant. This defendant says that he has fully
accounted for all the hires of the comnplainants
and that he has constantly kept them hired out
and kept them employed except in case