Show MEEARS ANSWERS lie Denies the Allegations of the Morgan People AND FILES ACROSS COMPLAINT He Tllnes Back the Fraud Charges p and Quotes the Shot Gun Episode George A Meears yesterday filed his answer to the complaint in the suit brought against him by John A Groes beck Trustee a suit which our readers will remenfber involves the possession of the Morgan Group in the Park The answer consists in the most part of emphatic em-phatic denials to the allegations of the plaintiff It admits the entering into the contract on lay 24th 1884 with Morgan Schrer and John i B Parry the original owners D ties that the defendant de-fendant has not paid them the 500 agreed upon but alleges that on the contrary it was paid in full Denies that the obtaining of the signature of Henry Hirschman was any part of the contract and alleges that Hirschman had verbally given Morgan power to act for him but that he afterwards refused to sign and his name was not considered in that he has no interest in the issue denies that he did not fulfill his contract or that he has in any way abandoned it but on the contrary alleges al-leges that he went into immediate possession pos-session spending various sums of money In all 16000 and that the contract and agreement are still in full force and effect also alleges that he employed a force of good miners to do the necessary work and was in quiet and peaceable > osses ion except when molested by the alleged agents of the pretended Morgan Mining Company Denies that the contract was unfair or inequitable and alleges that the parties of the first part thereto have made no demand that it be amended or cancelled and says the plaintiff plain-tiff has no right title or interest in the premises Denies that John Parry had any right to deed anv of the property to Susannah Parry or that Morgan or Schser had any right to make the pretended transfer to the Morgan Company as all had conveyed their right to detendant by deed filed for record in Summit County on June 5th ISM Alleges that the transfer from these parties to the said Morgan Manufacturing Manufactur-ing Company was obtained by false and fraudulent misrepresentation and denies de-nies that there is any such corporation in existence as the Morgan Mining Company I Com-pany denies that the plaintiff holds any property in trust for that Company Com-pany denies that any portion of the capital stock has ever been paid Alleges Al-leges that all assessment work necessary neces-sary has been done by him and denies that plaintiff has employed any mines to do assessment work Thofacts are he recites that on various occasions two men named Barry aud Parry pretending pre-tending to be agents for the Morgan Company demanded to be let into possession pos-session and that on October 21st these two parties together with A J Moore and one Moulding all of them armed with six shooters came upon the ground and forcibly broke open the doors of the Grizzly tunnel and forcibly took possession in the name of the plaintiff and retained possession until they were arrested several days later The answer closes by praying for the dissolution of the restraining order asks that the plaintiffs complaint be dismissed and that defendants right nnd title be quieted and confirmed Mr Meears also files a crosscom plaint wherein he recites most of the above facts and claims that thA deed and agreement of May 24th 1884 gave I him entire and peaceable possession of the properties in question He alleges that the plain tiff in the action against himand other persons acting through and with him conspiring to cheat and defraud defendant out of hs just rights in anu to the whole of said premises among other things falsely and fraudulently fraud-ulently represented to the said Morgan Sbser ana Parry that the deed made aS aforesaid to this defendantconveyed no title ani was voidand by moans of such false and frauduient representations induced these parties to execute tneir several deeds wherein they attempt to convey to John A Groesbeck the plaintiff all the property and mining premises He also alleges that by the order of the Court plaintiff was given possession of the Grizzly tunnel for the purpose of doing assessment work but this in common with the defendant but that plaintiffs representatives excluded ex-cluded defendant from any possession therein contrary to the order Wherefore Where-fore he asks that plaintifTs claims and pretensions be adjudged null and void and that he be prevented from disturbing disturb-ing defendant in the possession of the properties in question WOODS HOFFMAN C K GILCHHIST f Attorneys for defendant p 11 r |