{"character_count": 5455, "word_count": 1014, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9843000173568726], "ccnet_perplexity": [900.0999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
| Dy her, Doth as princfpdl and security, III the case hereinafter stated, but don't recol-f

 lect that her individual name was signed as

 security to any note, except the one for Wi!- | lliam Williams, mentioned in int. 5th.

 Tnt. 3d. Was there ever any discount

 made to MARGARET WILLIAMS, except upon

 her stock note2

 .ansaoer-She obtained discounts upon | personal security notes when the office first went into operation, or at least few months

 atterward. Thosediscounts, however, were

 made on account Of stock, and were subse-

 quently taken up with the proceeds of her

 stock note.

 Imt. 4M. Has she been sued upon that

 notei

 .anSwer-I believe that the Attorney for

 the Trustees has not, as vet, commenced suit

 against her on her stock note. | I,a 5th. Was her name ever signed to

 any note in bank except to one as security, 1 for William Williams and to her own stock

 note

 .4nSwer-I do not distinctly remember

 (and having forwarded the books of this of

 flee to Little Rock cannot refer) whether or

 not her indtridual name was ever signed to

 any other notes ill Bank, than the ones above

 specified, and the ones stated in your inter rogatory; but as you will yourself remem-

 Der, the name of W. Wll7iams $ Co.,, of

 which firm your mother-in-law, Margaret T Williams, was member, was placed upon

 two bills of exchange drawn by yourself, Chat firm being endorsers,) the one for eight

 hundred, the other for one thousand dollars, and to note for nineteen hundred dollars, in which you were principal, and w. Will

 Hams & Co. and others. as appeared by the

 face ot the note, were securities. upon which

 note the suit above mentioned was institu-

 ted; Mrs. Williams being sued in said note on account of the signature of w. Williams

 & Go. as securities, which signature, w. Williams & Co., you, in giving your testl- mony in said case, said you had placed upon Y, the note yourself, without the knowledge of Margaret or William Williams, the other members of the firm, you being the third and : other member of that firm prior to its disso } lution,

 Int. 6h. Did ever make oath before the board, or did ever file an affidavit in the

 bank, that was authorized to sign my mo- ther-n-law's name to any note, or any thing else

 .4nswer--Y ou never did either, to my : knowledge. Int. 7h. Do you not know, or believe, that the two notes now in bank, the only two } to which Mrs. Williams name was signed, was sigped by herself?

 Anspcr-The two notes by you above Gin

 int. numbered 5) specified were, as believe | from my knowledge of her signature, signed by Mrs. Williams in her own proper person fnt. 8h. Did l ever apply to the Real Estate Bank at Helena for discount upon promissory note, making oath that was au- : thorized to sign my mother-in-law's name to it?

 .ans,eer-Y ou never did upon any occa- sion, to my knowledge, make oath in the bank, or to its officers, that you were author ized to sign your mother-in-iaW's name to any note, as have stated in my answer to your 9th int.

 Int. 9th Did ever draw out any money upon any note signed by Mrs. Williams, ei . ther as principal or security, except upon her stock note for which. she checked III her own name; and farther, has Mrs. Williams t ever been sued upon any note signed by her, or purporting to be signed with her own ' name

 l .aasper-The discount to Mrs. Williams , ney was paid, was upon note with person. al security. The proceeds of that note was

 paid to you upon check signed by herself l don't think that you ever drew money on any note which she had signed with her own 3 indiuidual name as security. Mrs. Williams | has not, as now recollect, ever been sued q upon any note purporting to be signed by t her indiuidual name. The suit against her, : which was tried at the last term of our Cir K cult court, was upon the nineteen hundred '. dollars mentioned in my answer to the 9th q int, which note, $500 was givento take up e the bill of exchange for $l000 mentioned in n my answer to the same int, and note of 'l for q believe) $500.

 The above are, believe, answers to all ? the interrogatories by you propounded, and d the matters contained in the answers are as n nearly full statement of all the facts as IS could make in answer to the lnterrogatories Y as propounded 1 have chosen to number Il the nterrogatories as above for convenience ,- Respectfully, &c., n would now appeal to the public and ask Q them if have not been grossly slandered by ,eI that most infamous wretch that has ever dis h graced this or any other age' Have lnotproven Q that he has stated lalsehoods from the begin I ming to the end of his charges' Have no proven that no note purporting to be signed by

 Mrs. Williams, either as principal or security

 was ever presented to the bank, excepttwo, ont Il her own stock note and the other as security 0 for ". Williams, and that they were both |, signed with her own proper signature, and 'r that the money l drew for her was upon 0 checks signed by her and was the proceeds u of her own stock note , See 9th answer oi sr the cashier. Have not proven by the cer- 'e tlicate of the Clerk of the court that iflrs c, Williams has never been sued upon any nott } purporting to be signed by her either as pri't re cipa1 or securi,y9 Have not proven that r. never made any oath that was authorized id to sign her name to note, and have no t-l also nrauen that no oath was eyer made t,