Viewing page 31 of 298

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

For be it remembered that H. and W. had paid part of the purchase money for the property - were in possession of it - and had given their note for the ballance due and had a Bill of sale. And that said note simply carried with it a lien on the property. In fact it was Hanford and Willard's property. How then, we repeat, could it be seized to satisfy a claim against John H. Crisp or his son A. S. Crisp? Manifestly there was another motive! We are forced to the conclusion that the order was a mere sham and subterfuge and that the real motive in mind of the Bureau Agent was the protection of Hanford and Willard who are Northern men and to save them from the Trust Sale. This view of the case appears plain when you consider that Hanford and Willard made no objection and took no exceptions to the order- although it was their property that was thus seized. And when you consider the fact that they are still on the premises and in possession of the property and the further fact that they were evidently pleased and gratified on the day of sale that the property had been seized by the Bureau Agent although if

Transcription Notes:
---------- Reopened for Editing 2023-04-12 14:47:56