(No. 5.) Qualified general denial where several facts are admitted.1 SUPREME COURT. Walter Bruce agt. Eliza Clarke and others. The defendants, Seymour Ainsworth and Henry H. Hathorne, answering the complaint in this cause, and admitting that in 1832, John Clarke was seized and possessed of the lands and premises mentioned and described in said complaint, subject to the lease, also, therein described; and admitting that said John Clarke died, leaving him surviving the defendant, Eliza Clarke, his widow, and the defendants, Thomas L. Clarke, George B. Clarke and Eliza Thayer, his children and heirs at law, as is alleged in said complaint; and admitting that since the decease of the said John Clarke, his said widow and heirs-at-law, sold, assigned and conveyed to these defendants, Seymour Ainsworth and Henry H. Hathorne, all their right, title and interest of, in and to said lands, premises and lease; and admitting that they, said defendants, Seymour Ainsworth and Henry H. Hathorne, ever since such sale and conveyance, have had and still have the possession of said real estate, deny and controvert each and every allegation and statement in said complaint contained not hereinabove admitted. A. BOCKES, Defendants' Attorney. 1 To Complaint No. 79, Part II., ante, p. 331. This answer would, also, have been in better form had it been simply a denial of each and every allegation in the complaint, except that the defendants, &c., &c., as above. (No. 6.) Separate denials of two causes of action in same complaint, the one denial absolute, the other partially on informatian and belief.1 SUPERIOR COURT-CITY OF NEW-YORK. Daniel Owen and Jeremiah G. Lugar agt. The Hudson River Railroad Company. The defendants, in answer to the complaint of the plaintiffs, say:2 That, in relation to the first cause of action therein contained, they deny each and every allegation in respect thereof. That in respect to the second cause of action they have no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the injuries of Charlotte Russell, or any judgment recovered by her against the plaintiffs, or any compromise thereof, or the expenses of the plaintiffs in relation thereto, or their liability to be prosecuted by the remainder of said passengers, or as to any injuries received by said passengers, and they deny each and every other allegation in the said second cause of action set forth. And they deny the plaintiffs' claim for damages, and their right to recover of the defendants for any matter or thing in said complaint alleged. THOMAS M. NORTH, Defendants' Attorney. 1 To Complaint No. 82, Part III., ante, p. 514. 2 This form of denial, that "the defendants say they deny," &c., has been held defective in Arthur v. Brooks (14 Barb., 533), and in several later cases not reported. The denial must be direct and positive. (Pleadings, 429, et seq.) 3 This is unnecessary and surplusage. (No. 7.) Specific denials.1 SUPREME COURT. Abram Knight John McKnight. The defendant, John McKnight, for answer to the complaint of Abram Knight, plaintiff, denies that he made the written guaranty set forth in the complaint in this action. He also denies that the ale contained in the barrels and half barrels, mentioned in said complaint, did sour during its voyage, or that it was unfit for use, or that it was sold by the consignees thereof at public auction. The defendant also denies that, by reason of said ale becoming sour during the voyage, he, the said plaintiff, has sustained damage to the amount of $1,132.45, or any other sum. P. CAGGER, Defendant's Attorney. 1 To Complaint No. 51, Part III., ante, p. 448. (No. 8.) Denial, in part specific, of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief, and partly a positive general denial, united with an affirmative defence.1 SUPERIOR COURT — CITY OF NEW-York. Harvey O. Weed and Helen L., his wife, agt. The Panama Railroad Company. The defendants, for answer to the complaint in this action, say: That they have no knowledge or information, sufficient to form a belief, that the plaintiffs, on or about the 15th day of August, 1854, or at any time, with any other persons, took passage by the defendants' road to Aspinwall, or that the plaintiffs had paid their passage money or fare, or that the place where it is alleged said cars stopped, between Obispo and Aspinwall, was of the character stated in the complaint, or that it rained there, or that any miasma arose which filled the atmosphere or endangered the health of those compelled to breathe it, or that the defendants' agents knew the nature of such place, or that the same was unfit for the continued delay of the plaintiffs, or that, by reason of the matters stated in the complaint, the plaintiff, Helen L. Weed, suffered greatly in her body or mind, or then and there became sick in body, owing to the unwholesomeness of such place, or to 1 This answer is altered from the answer to Complaint No. 64, Part III., ante, p. 481. As to the form, requisites and sufficiency of denials on information and belief, see Pleadings, 430, et seq.; Edwards v. Lent, 8 How., 28. any cause, or suffered great or any pain, or that her life was despaired of for any time, or that by reason of the premises stated in the complaint she contracted a fever produced by exposure, from which she suffered in body or mind from that time until the commencement of this action, or that she has been weakened or enfeebled thereby, or that by reason of any wrongful misconduct of the defendants, or their agents or servants, the said Helen hath sustained great or permanent or any injury to her health And as to each and every other allegation in said complaint, the said defendant denies the same. Second. And for a second and further defence to this action, the defendant says: That all the detention which the plaintiffs were subjected to on the said railroad was necessary and unavoidable, and was occasioned by the inclemency of the weather and the character of the climate and country; that such detention was prudent and necessary for the safety of the passengers. That everything possible, under the circumstances, was done by the agents and servants of defendant for the safety and comfort of the passengers. That it would have been highly imprudent and inexpedient to attempt to take the passengers back to Obispo, and that they could not have been so safely or comfortably sheltered at Obispo, or at any other place within reach, as in the said cars. |