Transcript of Proceedings, , Sangamon Co., IL, ca. 17 July 1852, U.S. v. Joseph Smith III et al. (United States Circuit Court for the District of IL 1852); U.S. District Court for the District of Illinois, Complete Records, 1837–1856, vol. 4, pp. 486–697; handwriting of ; Records of District Courts of the United States, Record Group 21, National Archives at Chicago, Chicago.
Transcript of Proceedings, circa 17 July 1852 [ United States v. Joseph Smith III et al. ]
Page 600
said premises are insufficient in law or in equity to require him to answer the same and so to that part of said bill he demurs.
Respondant further says that as to all the rest and residue of said bill of Complaint and the things therein contained, he has no interest and does not know the facts and cannot state either to admit or deny them.
And now respondant having fully answered the said Complainants’ said bill of Complaint and interrogatories prays that he may be discharged with his reasonable costs and charges to be adjudged to him &c
John Wolf
Solicitor
United States of America)
ss [scilicet]
District of )
John Wolf the defendant who signed and made the within answer being by me duly sworn says that the facts therein stated in his own knowledge are true and those stated on information and belief he believes them to be true.
G[eorge] Edmunds Jr. Commissioner of U. S. Circuit Court Dist, of
This day to wit the second day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty came the defendant Luke P. Prentice by his and filed his seperate answer herein.
The seperate answer of defendant Luke P. Prentice to the complainants’ bill filed herein
And the said Luke P. Prentice saving and reserving to himself all and all manner of exceptions to the many uncertainties, informalities and insufficiencies in complainants’ bill for answer thereto or to so much thereof as he is advised it is necessary for him to answer says.
That he is the owner in fact of the fee simple title of lots No 2 on Block 160 and lot one (1) in Block 121 lot 3 Block 3, in Block 138 in the City of according the plat of said in the said complainants’ bill mentioned.
Respondant, further denies, that said Smith ever had any interest either in law or in equity to the said lots or that [p. 600]