Press enter after choosing selection

The Stepson Got The Property

The Stepson Got The Property image
Parent Issue
Day
15
Month
May
Year
1903
Copyright
Public Domain
OCR Text

The stepson got the property for taking care of Ephraim Eddy and wife

Daughter had chance, but declined to accept it - such is the defense of Andrew N. Rogers to sensational charges of Mrs. Mina Henderson

Andrew N. Rogers, by his attorney M. J. Cavauaugh, has filled his answer to the bill of Mrs. Mina Henderson recently filed in the circuit court, in which she sought to have a deed reformed and made charges of undue influence and fraud practiced upon Ephraim Eddy, her father, who recently died here aged 82 years. Mr Rogers was a stepson of Eddy. 

Mr. Rogers in his answer denies that Ephraim Eddy was incompetent mentally to transact business or that any fraud or deceit had been practiced. He denies that Eddy was under the influence of opiates or stimulants when he sold his farm in York last January for $3,100, or was influenced by him in making the sale. Mr Rogers claims that this sale was a good bargain, but says that he knew nothing about the sale until some time after it had been made. He denies that Eddy turned over to him the $3,100, but says Eddy deposited it in a Milan bank to his own credit. 

Rogers explains the purchase of the two lots of Joseph T. Shaw in this city for $2,300, the deed of which was made out to Rogers and a life estate being then transferred by Rogers to Eddy and his wife as being merely the carrying out of a fully understood contract that Rogers was to care for, maintain, nurse and look after Ephraim Eddy and his wife, Jane H. Eddy, during the natural life of each. He says that a similar offer was made to Mrs. Henderson last fall when she visited her father, but that she declined to have anything to do with her father. 

Rogers also denies fraudulently obtaining from Eddy a certificate of deposit for $675 in the Milan bank, and says Eddy sent for him and told him that he realized that he would soon die and desired to give him this money as his to use as he saw fit, but requested him to look after the comfort and pleasure of his wife, Mrs. Jane H. Eddy, who was Rogers' mother. 

He denies taking possession of the personal property charged, but says this property is still on the farm. He says that Ephraim Eddy during his lifetime was indebted to him in the sum of $2,000 for personal work, labor and attention. 

The answer having thus treated the sensational charges of the bill, an abstract of which has appeared in the Argus, continues: 

"The defendant, further answering avers that his said mother, the said Jane H. Eddy, is now sick and has been in a crippled condition for the last six years and it has been incumbent upon her notwithstanding crippled condition to take care of the home and household of the said Ephraim Eddy and the said Jane H. Eddy attempted to persuade the said complainant, the said Mina Henderson, to come and live with them and help take care of the father of said complainant, but instead of complying with the wish of her father she went on a pleasure trip with her husband to California and remained there until after the death of her said father when she at once became possessed of the idea that she might be able to get some of the property that he had provided for those who had taken care of him. 

"This defendant further answering avers that at no time previous to the death of the said Ephraim Eddy was he incompetent to transact business of any kind and avers that the said Ephraim Eddy provided a very neat patrimony of $7,500 for his said daughter, but that she and her husband lavishly expended the same; that her said husband is a man of poor judgment in business matters and more or less addicted to the use of intoxicating Iiquors and was constantly seeking pleasure trips on the pretense of sickness and that said complainant and her said husband would not visit at the home of the said Ephraim Eddy or give her said father any attention and the only filial duty that she has shown toward her said father has been an effort to grasp and take away from him all of his said property." 

Consequently Mr. Rogers asks that the bill of complaint be dismissed.