Booth Court Case M1892: Deposition of Richard H. Henderson 1834

JOHN BOOTH (INDIANA) vs JOHN BOOTH (LOUDOUN)
CASE M1892
15th SEPT 1834


The examination of Richard H. Henderson, who being first sworn saith:
Q1: by Pltff Counsel. Do you know any thing of the subject of this suit? If so, state it in such way as to dishonor with particular interrogatories?
A: In October last an elderly man calling himself John Boothe, who stated to me that he lived in Jefferson County, Indiana. Called upon me for advice and aid in my profession; he told me that he was the oldest son out heir at law to James Booth. Who was one of the devisees of Robert Boothe, who had died long since in the County of Loudoun – that his father was killed by the Indians when he was about two years old – that John Boothe the Deft had called on him at his residence in Jefferson County, Indiana, and applied to him to purchase his interest in the land to which he was entitled as heir aforesaid. He stated other things which is not proper for me to repeat here. Because it is not ______ evidence what haped between me and the Defendant – he told me that the Deft offered him first fifty dollars and then one hundred dollars for his said interest; but that he refused the offers and that they entered into a written contract whereby the Deft agreed to purchase and recover his said interest for him – and he on his part agreed that the Deft should have on his part one half for the recovery of the other – that the Deft had paid some little matter to a member of his family he believed his daughter that he had been lately satisfied that the Deft had defrauded him, that he was not willing to abide by the agreement and was determined to assert his rights of he had any, and engaged me to serve him in that behalf.

On the 26th day of the month (October) after having found the Power of Attorney on record, said Boothe of Indiana having told me that there were such, and having found a deed for the Defendant in his Character of Attorney in fact for Boothe of Indiana, the Plaintiff, to John George, and another to James Boothe conveying him Sixty acres of good land for $100. I went up into the neighborhood in which John George and the Deft. Lived, with a view mainly to see George, whom I did not find at home – Boothe of Indiana being very poor apparently, and anxious to do something in the business, I went to the house of the Deft and found him at home – we sat in his porch and talked on this subject – he said he could easily satisfy me that Boothe of Indiana had no right – he admitted to me that Boothe of Indiana was the So and Heir at Law of James Boothe the devisee of Robert – told me that he had called on him in Indiana and offered him fifty Dollars for his interest in the Loudoun lands, and I think he then told me that he had offered him $100, but of that I am not certain – he then told me that he had a receipt in full from Boothe of Indiana, and several letters from him; but would satisfy me that he had no right – I told him if these papers were at hand and he had no objection to produce them. I should like to see them. – he said certainly he had none and brought out a receipt and a letter which he had rec’d from Boothe. The receipt was written in pale red ink – the body of it – the signature of the Pltff and of the attesting witness were all to my perception in the same hand writing – the attesting witness I think was named William Carpenter – the receipt filed with the Answer of the Deft, I recognized as the same shown to me on that occasion – the Deft told me that Carpenter the witness was a lawyer – he handed me the letter to read and said he had others – I think the letter was dated in June 1819 – it purported to be written, as Deft stated, by Boothe of Indiana and stated “you inform me that you could get but $300 for my land, this being the case. I am willing to take $150.” or words of that import, and then went on to point out the mode of remitting the money – the kind of money, and such like matters – the Deft then advised me with some anniety, to prevail on Boothe of Indiana to give up the pursuit of his claim – we then separated and I again sought John George on my way home and found him – told him what had haped between Deft and myself – or the greater part of it and had some conversation with him which it is not proper to detail – within three days of this, to wit, on the 29th Oct., I made a particular memorandum of my conversations with Pltiff George and with the Deft, which I have preserved, and am therefore am able to state with some accuracy and confidence what haped.

Q1: by Deft Counsel. Are you the Admn of Archibato Henderson, Jr decd? And was he not interested in the recovery in the case at the time of his death – and what was his interest?
A: I am his Admn, and he was interested at the time of his death – his interest is contingent – depending on the recovery.

Q2: by same. What proportion of the recovery was your intestate entitled to?
A: I am inclined to think that I am not bound to answer that question, and therefore I decline it.

Q3: by same. Was it an interest discernible to his personal representative? And was not notice given to Defendant that there was an interest in the intestate?
A: I consider it an interest __________ to his personal representative. It is probable such notice may have been given; but if it was, I have forgotten it.

Counsel for Deft objects to the competency of Richard H. Henderson as a witness on the ground developed in the answer, to the last interrogatories, he being interested as Counsel for Deft alleged. The objection was made before his ??????