Viewing page 30 of 298

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

as illegal and unjust and arbitrary.

Now General we desire to direct your attention to a few points deducible from the above statement of facts: In the first place it is manifest that one proceeded in strict compliance with law in making the sale under the Trust Deed. And if not Hanford & Willard could easily have enjoined the sale by a Writ of Injunction from the Civil Courts which have never been abolished. The Trustee on several different occasions stated as much to Messrs Hanford & Willard and expressed his desire to proceed in strict conformity with Law. And they did employ counsel as we understand for that purpose. Why then should the Bureau Agent interfere?  He says it was for the protection of the freedmen and to secure the payment of claims due from J.H. & A.S. Crisp. Now if it be true (and it is specially denied) that $4700 "in specie" is due from J.H. & A.S. Crisp to the freedmen on what principle of justice and equity could Hanford & Willard's property be seized to satisfy it?

Transcription Notes:
---------- Reopened for Editing 2023-04-12 14:39:36 Reopened b/c not finished & lots of [[?]]