Ledger # 2 of Walter B. Gwyn

pages 600- 699

M. S. Farmer Esq.,

Feb. 19, 1897

Flat Rock, N.C.

Dear Sir;

A young man by name of Jackson, in the employ of the Express Company here, came in to inquire about your hotel, having seen a brief advertisement of mine in the Gazette. I told him about the property, and he said he has an uncle O.M. Brown who may consider it. This young man comes from Texas, and says his uncle has kept hotel at some place below Galveston. You may hear from them before long- I told him your price was $30,000 but you would probably shade that some, as you wanted to sell.

Yours Very Truly

Feb. 19, 1897

T. B. Lenoir Esq.,

Yadkin Valley, N.C.

Dear Tom;

I received your favor of the 15^th, and I am sorry to hear that you are suffering with the grip. I have never had the disease but I am perfectly willing, from what I hear others say of it, to forego the experience. I do not know whether I can come to McFowell Court or not at the ensuing term. I hope I can, and I shall be much pleased to meet you there if I can come.

Hoping you are better of your “lay grip” as some of these mountain people so appropriately call it, and with love to the family, I remain, affectionately Yours.

Geo. W. Pack Esq.,

Feb 19, 1897

New York

My Dear Sir;

Your favor received, and I have informed Mr. Grant accordingly. Of course I never had any doubt as to your intention to occupy your house in the near future, but it is pleasant to read a positive statement to that effect, and I trust it will not now be long before you will be coming along.

Col. Young “never came back any more”. The time was up yesterday. I have given to the “Gazette” an advertisement indicating a sale of the property on Saturday the 27^th of March. The Col. Told me some two weeks ago that he was expecting his son-in-law the following day, but it appeared that his mission into the town was to be present at the making of another son-in-law. I suppose they failed to make a raise, any way that is the last I have hear from them.

Times awfully dull here, but lots of strangers now coming in.

Edwards Murray Esq.,

Feb. 19. 1897

Battery Park Hotel, City.

Dear Mr. Murray;

I have seen Mr. Craig again. I really think it is a little over-conservative to turn him down, as he evinces such a disposition to make you perfectly secure in the loan. He now offers to put it an additional security a lot of some two acres of land further out on the Avenue, worth any way six hundred dollars, and also a lot on Cumberland Avenue for which he will pay in cash three hundred and fifty dollars. I am acquainted with the land and know that $350 is the least price that will buy the lot named.

This puts the matter on a quite different basis, the security proposed being some $950 better. As I said to you before, Craig can not afford to do otherwise than keep his contract strictly with you even if he were disposed to do otherwise; and his new proposition emphasizes that theory. The mortgage or deed of trust will provide (as will also the bond) that a failure on his part to pay any part or principal of the bond, (at your option), so that there will be no chance for accumulations of any consequence.

I would also call your attention to the fact that Craig’s property is right in the line of a healthy and steady growth, the settlements being of excellent class of citizens.

I hope you will reconsider and let Mr. Craig have this money, and I shall be very much pleased to have you notify me to that end.

 

Hon. W. A Hoke-

Lincolnton, N. C.

Dear favor inclosing ck $279.85 payable to Powell and Snider for bal. due on lot, received and I turned over the ck to them today and cancelled the D.T. on the record, having Mr. Snider for himself and Powell join me in the release. I inclose you the note and the deed of trust both marked paid. Regarding your inquiry as to what your entire property would bring now, there is little or nothing selling now, the McKinley leaven not beginning to work yet, as it seems. I shall be on the lookout for any chance to sell all or a part and be guided by your written instructions which I preserve.

O. Ellery Edwards Esq.

Feb. 26, 1897

Washington, D. C.

My Dear Edwards;

Your favor of the 22^nd was received last night. I note your remark “If Lyman will pay me a thousand dollars for me interest in the estate, he can have it for all time to hold in fee”. This being susceptible of several constructions, I would like to know just what you mean by it.
1^st. Do you mean only your individual interest, or were you speaking about the interest of both yourself and Miss Helen?
2^nd. What do you mean by the word “estate”? Do you mean all the land that was covered by the mortgage, or only the R. B. & Z. F. Vance tract of 140 to 146 acres, leaving out the proposition the 106 acres against which Lyman sets up no claim-

3^rd. If, as I think is the case, you meant to confine the proposition to the 146 acre tract, in which Lyman claims a two thirds undivided interest, do you mean that you will give him a quiet claim deed to the whole tract of 146 acres, or only for the interest which he claims to it?

As it stands now, you and your sister own free of any claim by anybody that I know of, a tract of 106 acres on the river, and an interest of one third in 146 acres including the mill site. You own the other two thirds interest in the mill tract also, but against that two thirds interest Lyman has a claim. If the interests were divided instead of undivided as they are, you would own say 46.67 acres of the mill trat without adverse claim by any one- you would own the remainder, say 93.33 acres also, subject to a claim by Lyman that he is the owner thereof by reason of his tax deed. Now do you propose to sell him for one thousand dollars your “46.67” acre tract and your claim to the “93.33” acre tract also, or only the latter? That is the question.

Now in regard to selling out to him for money, I do not believe you can do that, because I do not think he has it. If you intend to surrender to him every thing owned down there by both of you, he would raise the money in some way, I suppose he would do it even if you intend to sell him all the claim you and your sister have to the 140 acre tract, for the one third to which your title is undisputed is easily worth it, and he would make all the rest clear. But if you intend to confine your proposition to the land in dispute, and simply compromise the matter on his paying a thousand dollars I hardly think he will do it, but only take courage to fight harder. What I do think he would do is to accept in compromise, a portion of what he is claiming. I am confident he would be willing to take, say, one half of the land on the North side of the creek say forty five to fifty acres. Or, if you would offer to pay him cash, I believe he would be mighty glad to get $1,000, or even less. He has not half the case in law that he appears to have on a slight examination of the papers, and I think I can convince his attorney.

Though of course I do not expect them to admit it, that his case is well high hopeless. If I want at arranging a compromise, I think I would ask for a conference with his attorneys, and submit my strong point as to misleading and wholly erroneous descriptions in the sale and advertisement, and then propose and compromise on the ground that the long delays of our courts would damage my clients as much as the loss of some of the land, and propose to give Lyman 25 or 30 acres off of the east or west end of the tract North of the creak, or a slice off the North side of the tract. I think you should retain the strip running south of the creek as it parallels and is near your river (R. B. Vance) tract, and might be wanted by the man who buys that tract sometime.

I have been today platting the two tracts as best I can with the defective calls of the deed- I am quite sure there are at least fifty acres south of the creek, which would leave ninety acres North of the creek- but I believe there are more than that.
I inclose you more advance sheets of my brief, pages 11 to 18- there will be some more pages, I cannot tell just how many, but not over five or six I guess.

I have not corrected the pages sent, and shall hardly have time, I think to do it. You can see what I am driving at and make allowance for the type-writing machine.

I cannot answer your inquiries as to costs &c., any more fully than I have heretofore answered them unless you refer to the costs in the Superior Court of Buncombe County where your case is already pending. There is but little costs accrued there, so far, and it costs practically nothing whatever to let the case stand on the docket until it is reached for trial, which will be the Lord knows when—there is no good purpose to be served by taking a non-suit and dropping the case at this stage, but great harm, as it would take away all inducement for a compromise on Lyman’s part. It is true we are in possession, but he would simply wait a while until it was too late to question his tax deed, and then bring suit and get the land.

This is a very long letter, but would have been shorter if yours had been longer.
With kind regards

Mar. 3, 1897

W. W. Barnard Esq.,

City

Dear Sir;

Inclosed please find the quitclaim deed spoken of in our conversation with Mr. Sondley. I have endeavored to draw so as not to interfere with any rights acquired since you owned the land, and have submitted it to Mr. Sondley, who says it is satisfactory to him.
If you and Mrs. Barnard will kindly execute and acknowledge it before Mr. Cathey, I will refund you any expense and be much obliged.
Yours Very Truly

Feb., 26, 1897

O. Ellery Edwards Esq.,

Washington, D.C.

My Dear Edwards;

I herewith inclose pages 19 to 22, inclusive of my brief, if so long a document can properly be called a brief. I shall not add anything to it at present; it is quite enough before the trial, if we ever have one. You will observe that I have said nothing whatever about fraud between Lyman and Z. F. Vance, except in the “history of the case,” which takes up the first ten pages.

Argument on that point would be out of place until we introduce evidence to show fraud. The fraud once proved to the satisfaction of the jury, and a verdict found to that effect, the law is quite plain.
What shall I ask customers for the 106 acre (river) tract? There is little demand for land at present, but I may have an application at any time, and I want to be in a position to price the land. I have been asking $4,000, and asking for an offer, but I got none. I have not had a serious application that I now remember, for the whole tract, but Gen. T. P. Davidson, who bought the David Vane tract under mortgage, 107 acres for something like $1,500, wants a strip of it, off the upper end, triangular in shape, and wants me to go down there and see how he wants it run. He has spoken to me two or three times, but I gave him little encouragement, as I hardly thought, and hardly now think he will give a decent price for it, and it might injure the sale of the rest. He would want only some four or five acres, the best I can judge from his description.

Geo. W. Pack Esq.,

Feb. 27, 1897

Holland House, N. Y.

My Dear Sir;

I believe I can sell O.M. Coston lots nos. 14 & 15 in block IX, East side of Montford Ave., next south of Merrick’s small lot he bought of you, if you will sell them to him on terms to suit.

What he wants is to buy them on time, using the money he has at command to build a neat house on one of them, intending afterwards to build another or sell a lot, or do both. If you will let him have the lots on monthly payments, (his suggestion) or quarterly (mine) I think he will take them. He came in to inquire about another piece of property I have advertised in the Gazette, so you see he is looking round.

These lots were formerly priced at $350.00 each, but the book shows that just eight months ago today they were marked up to 500 each. Coston asked me to ask you your lowest price as well as your best terms.
Pretty cold here this morning- 20 above, and the North wind still coming, but not hard. Little bit of snow on the ground.

Yours Truly,

W. B. Gwyn

1897

Geo. W. Pak in A/c W. B. Gwyn
Feb. 27. 1897

Asheville, N. C.

Chas. H. Hartshorne in A/C W. B. Gwyn

1896

Mar. 1, 1897

Mr. Chas. H. Hartshorne-

Jersey City, N. J.

My Dear Sir;

I inclose herewith statement up to and including Feb. 28 Ult. The trouble is not all over yet. The new firepot in furnace, which was set the other day, and the rim of the furnace repaired, has not yet been paid for, and the bowl of the basin in the bath rub, which is to be fixed, will have to be settled for. I hope this month’s rent, when I get it, may be sufficient, or more than enough to finish. They now complain about some rotten wood about the kitchen sink, and the front yard steps, and say the porch pillars need treatment to keep them from decaying, &c. I shall observe your request to do what is necessary to keep the property from going down, and try to do as little more as I can. These people are the most exacting and clamorous I have ever had to deal with, and I have had to call them down a time or two. I am getting pretty loose on the handle, and expect to surprise them one of these days by flying off with a loud report. Hope I won’t hit anybody, for the fellow says he weighs 170.

Geo. W. Pack Esq.,

Mar. 1, 1897

New York.

My Dear Sir;

I herewith inclose my account for Feb. I am unable to pay back anything on the debt at present. I made $95.96 (gross) in Feb., but I paid a little on my taxes and street paving assessments, and want to pay up in full this month if possible.

Gen. T. F. Davidson came into the office a few days ago and wanted to know if you would interpose any objection to the repeal of the charter of Sunset Park. I didn’t know. What did I think? I didn’t think. Spose the land was yourn, what would you think? I didn’t know- as a matter of course when the land was mine, I wanted a charter or else I would not have spent $25.00 to get one; but I did not know how I would feel if the land was mine now.
Davidson said “some of the people owning land out there wanted the charter repealed because the county had done nothing to the roads since the charter was passed, and thought if it was repealed the roads would fall back to the county to take care of. I noticed by a late paper that Mr. Lusk has introduced a bill in the legislature for the repeal, and there are only a few days left of the session. Verbum sap.

That spray young kitten, E. Sevier, again wanted to know, a few days ago, “when the old colonel was comin back?”

We had two mornings pretty cold- down to 20 degrees yesterday, and about the same Saturday. Today is fine and clear, but south wind blowing. I hope New York is doing itself proud in the way of weather. I never knew, till I read about it in the Tribune “greater New York” number, what a delightful, balmy, bracing, nerve-restoring climate lingered around Manhattan Island. We learn a great many things from the newspapers of which we would otherwise go down to the grave in blissful but ignominious ignorance.

An ardent young man of Fort Wayne

Went to Cuba to fight against Spayne

But he lost his machinate

In a hasty retrote—

Then he headed the list of the slayne.

A charming young girl of Deluth

Had a terrible pain in her tuth

When her small brother said

He would put her to baid

With a hat pin she punctured the yuth.

There was a young lady from Bright,

Whose chief pleasure it was to recight

Now she picked up a log

And demolished a dog

Which attempted her ankles to bight.

A man in Virginia, named Taliaferro,

Thought O. Washington greater than Baliaferro---

Dispute it was dared

He would find, he declared

A Roland he’d get for his Aliaferro.

Mar. 2, 1897

Editor Puck

New York.

Dear Sir;

Inclosed please find some verses, with a stamp for return if not wanted.

Yours Truly

Col. V.S. Lusk

March 2, 1897
Raleigh, N.C.

Dear Colonel;

I see by a late paper that you have introduced a bill to restore the rules of evidence as formerly in suits arising upon tax deeds. I do hope you will push that bill through. You ought not to have any opposition in such a good cause. Our legislatures, the past few sessions, have seemed bent upon making a tax title that would stick. Legislatures of other states have also been hammering at the same thing for decades. It has been a hard thing to do. It ought to have been a hard thing to do. It ought to be an impossible thing, or the next thing to it, for a man to get from his fellow man property worth one hundred dollars, yea even assessed by the State itself, at one hundred dollars, for the paltry sum of 80 cents to $2.00 with interest and expenses. Shylock wanted only one point of flesh. The modern land shylock wants the whole carcass.
Better give him one hundred per cent interest instead of twenty—give him a percentage on the value of the land for counsel fees—sufficient to enable him to foreclose his lien as is provided elsewhere in the laws- but never ought a sheriff or tax collector be able to convey away from a man everything he has rather than that the great State of North Carolina should be deprived of the one hundredth part of the value thereof.
I am in favor of the purchaser at tax sales having an indisputable lien, and provision made for him to foreclose his lien and charge reasonable lawyers’ fees in addition to his tax lien and costs—but never should a sheriff make a tax deed without a foreclosure first.

Getting back to the subject, as I said, our late legislatures in their fierce desire and determination (put on their mettle, as it were), to make possible a good tax deed, seemed to have lost sight completely of the poor tax payer and his rights, and undertook to say that the deed of a tax collector should be presumptive evidence of everything that is not true, and conclusive evidence of all that is false. I hazard the assertion that there has never been a tax deed executed by a collector in North Carolina, that was based upon proceedings that conformed strictly to all that was required.

It is against the spirit of the times- against the laws of right, human and divine, that one man should consume and destroy his fellow to such disastrous extent as is necessarily implied by a tax sale and deed. Consequently all legislatures, while endeavoring to lay down plain provisions whereby it might be done in cases where citizens were recreant to their patriotic duty of paying taxes, they still kept in mind the rights and liberties of good citizens, and the courts always construed strictly the legislative provisions, and required officers and tax purchasers to show affirmatively that all jurisdictional steps, at least, had been properly taken. The courts never lost sight of the fact that the tax deed was a merely technical contrivance—without merit---expressly so stated in case after case—called a technical “rather than a meritorious” title.

But lo, here comes a North Carolina legislature and under takes to say by statute that this technical, non-meritorious contrivance shall be lifted to a high and ho plane of inviolability far above that occupied by a so-called meritorious title. I reckon the legislature meant well- it generally does, in non-partisan legislation, and often does even in that kind, though it never gets credit for it from the opposite side. “Taint nature.” But they “knew not what they did”- as you so aptly observed in a cent speech. No! and they never will until they or their friends suffer in a case of grab such as you and I have observed in this neighborhood.
Shakespeare said, “He knows not grief who never lose a child.” I say the enormity of a tax title never is realized by those who have not witnessed an example—seen, as we have seen, a man get a valuable house and lot—worth some twenty five hundred dollars—one out of three—how many nights do you suppose those shylocks lay awake, hoping and praying that that poor married woman would not find out her land was about to go until they could go and get a tax deed! And lo! One morning the fatal day arrived—up early, jump in the buggy! Hurry to J. H. Weaver’s tax office—look at the sale book- not redeemed! If so, the sale book don’t show it! Where’s Weaver? Just stepped out—be back in a minute—here he comes—lord! How Shylock heart beats! How pale he looks—he shoves the deed, already prepared by himself or his lawyer, at Weaver—Here’s the sale book—see! Not redeemed! The day of redemption is passed! Here’s your fifty cents- sign the deed, quick—make the entry on the sale book: write down the woman’s doom—There! Come now to Cathey’s office and acknowledge it- the certificate is already written- What? Cathey out? Where’s Cathey? Oh! Here he comes stumping along! Good old honest John- take your quarter John- Now than to the register’s office—the register has gone into the coffin business, and don’t so much mind registering a deed like this as he might if he had not got used to funerals. Filed—day-hour-minute- feeds pd—Ring down the curtain- cover up the corpse. Pass the bill Colonel and make impossible, or improbably, another like iniquity!
Yours Truly,

W. B. Gwyn

Mar. 3, 1897

Dr. W. B. Phillips;

P.O. Box 346,

Birmingham, Ala.

My Dear Dr;

I have received your announcement, and am pleased to note that you still live. “Such as coal washing, saving of waste products &c.” What do you mean by that? I reckon you prefer to the coal dust, the shattered refuse about the mine. I thought it generally scraped up and utilized as “steam coal”, and for burning. I saw, however, I think in the “Scientific America,” or it might have been a pot metal newspaper item, how this dust is pressed into cubes and fed to locomotives, in England (think), and that the engineers preferred this fuel to the ordinary lump coal. I had many years ago thought of this plan, which was suggested by the annoying accumulations of coal dust in my cellar. When I saw this item I got to thinking about the matter again, and an idea struck me which I believe is a good one. You would know better than I, whether it is of value. I would like to make some money by a short cut- really need some. I made one fortune by honest short cuts combined with hard labor, and lost by still shorter cuts. I am getting old, I find, and would like to make another fortune, if there is no harm in the ambition. If there is any, of course I don’t want it. If you want to hear about it, write me and I will explain. With many regards at your house; as our old friend DuFour used to say, I remain,

Yours Truly.

Asheville N. C. ¾

R. Randolph Hicks Esq.

Roanoke, Va.

I would be very much obliged if you will write me in strict confidence, anything you may know about one or both of two ladies who say they come from your city- some months ago, and speak of buying property in Asheville. One is a young widow Mrs. Morrison, the other is a small but not very young “old maid,” Miss L. S. King; Do not put yourself to any trouble at all, except to write what you may happen to know, or may ascertain by casual inquiry.

Hon. Grover Cleveland

Mar. 4^th, 1897

Princeton, N. J.

Dear Sir;

As you are now no longer president, and as you no doubt intend to retire permanently from public life, I may be acquitted of any personal or selfish design in presenting my compliments, and begging to say that I am proud to be included in the number of American citizens who take no part in the misguided popular clamor of disapproval of your public acts. There was a time, not long ago, when the mention of your name at public gatherings in the South was followed by deafening cheers, in which I joined if I happened to be present. There was furnished the most striking example recorded in modern politics of the fickleness of popular favor, in the very short time that sufficed to reverse the above conditions, and to bring into the public mind such a complete revulsion of sentiment that the mention of your name in even democratic assemblies provoked, to me, most disgusting and heart rending groans and hisses. Please bear with me a moment while I say that in only one of your minor matters, where I happened to be in possession of facts which I shall always believe you were not acquainted with, did I disapprove of your course, and my criticism did not, in that case, extend to condemnation, for I knew that you were doing what you believed to be right. In two principal matters of public moment, I differed with you and still differ, without condemnation in the least of your motives.

Miss L. S. King
Mar. 5, 1897

31 Bearden Ave.,

City

Dear Miss King;

I forgot to mention, yesterday, a house I have for sale on the corner of Bailey and Phillip streets, North side of the latter, and west side of Bailey. It is now occupied by the chief of Police, Mr. R. F. Lee, who has it on a short lease. There are ten rooms in the house, which is well built. The lot is 100 feet or more front on Bailey street, and runs back about 150. There is a good stable and a carriage room, with a servant’s room overhead. The premises have sewer and water connection, but there is no bath room in the house. This can be easily and cheaply put in.

The house was built by a gentleman who was in the tobacco business on a large scale, as agent for some wealthy Englishmen, and he lost money for his employers and left the house and the factory adjoining it on their hands, and they want to sell both for whatever they can get for them. The factory is nearly rotten down, and will undoubtedly be torn down before long, being utterly unfit for use as a business, house any more. Some excellent people have lived in this house, and some of the best people in Asheville live right along there on Bailey Street. It is a good place for boarders, both strangers and table boarders. I once took table board there. Owing to the special circumstances you can get a good bargain in this property, as the owners have no use for it and want to dispose of it. If you go to look at it kindly call by my office no your way there, as I have a suggestion to make. If I am not in, do not trouble to wait about seeing me first.

I refer to the first bond issue (I think it was the first), and to the Venezuelan message. I was amazed at the storm of approval that was evoked in this neighborhood, from the very men that had vilified you without stint—I took pains to say that of all your public acts that one appealed to me least.
As to your attitude on the tariff, and on the question of free coinage, I consider your position unassailable, and I suppose I have contributed as much as a whole issue of the “Charlotte Observer”, to that good paper in “gold standard” matter. However, when the die was cast, I followed the party after Bryan. I told the boys that whereas, formerly, I would have resented an insinuation that I was “coming under the party lash”, I now wanted it distinctively understood that I was doing just that thing. I don’t know whether I was in the right or the wrong. I respect my position and that of men who adopted the same course, far more than I do these democrats who voted for McKinley, the arch-advocate of class legislation.
I wish I could see and shake hands with you, but I doubt if I shall ever have an opportunity, unless you should visit Asheville, which I hope you will do some time. I lost everything I had made in the panic, and those in the same boat with me, about here, laid it at your door. I laid it at my own. If I had the brains to see that speculation had run mad for several years up to and including 1890, I would have pulled for shore, instead of embarking a lot of hired ships in 1890, just before the hurricane struck.
I thank God that I did not add to my follies by cursing anybody for my misfortunes.
Kindly accept the sympathy and good will of a stranger in your physical sufferings- With great respect, Yours Truly,

W. B. Gwyn

C. E. Graham Esq.,

Mar. 6, 1897

Greenville, S. C.

Dear Graham;

I have just shown your Patton house to a Mr. Kemp, of Dayton, Ohio. I priced it to him at $6,000 but told him that you had instructed me to report by wire any offer. He was pleased with the house, and Mrs. Addicks, wife of the present tenant, praised the place up. I could not get Mr. Kemp to make an offer, but I hope to get him to make one next week, as he is coming in to look at property. He said the property was a bargain. It seems his daughter has been here for about a year—here and in vicinity. They are going to Capt. Troy’s near Hendersonville in a week or two and from what he said I think she is acquainted about Hendersonville.
I hope your dyspepsia has left you by this time. Don’t work quite so hard. You will regret when it is too late to do anything but suffer the consequences.
With kind regards to Mrs. Graham and love to the children.

Dear W. B. Phillips;

Mar. 5^th, 1897

Birmingham, Ala.

Dear Phillips;

I am in receipt of your kind note of late date, inquiring what might be my invention in relation to saving coal dust. As stated in a former letter, I saw a newspaper article that my original idea conceived many years ago, had been put into practice abroad, and that some of the rail roads were using for fuel compressed cubes of coal waste, and that the engineers preferred it to lump coal. I thought you would have said something in reply as to whether that was a yarn, as I presume you keep well posted on all such matters. Assuming that the report is true and that there has been found a practicable method of so compressing the waste, either with or without the aid of some cohesive medium, that it is sufficiently firm and tough for transportation and use my later invention looks towards the form of the blocks. I am under the impression that one draw-back to the free and even combustion of bituminous coal in locomotives and other boilers, is the tendency to slide down with flat faces opposed, thus preventing circulation of air, and choking the blame accordingly. It seems to me that this would occur in aggravated degree with cubical compressed blocks of uniform size and shape, and that the rough tumbling into the fire box would not entirely prevent the trouble, though it would diminish it. Now my plan is to mould the blocks more or less round, at least with rounded corners, the blocks to be of graduated sizes according to the service required, say from the size of croquet balls upward, the smallest size being intended for stoves, and a larger size for grate.

It seems possible to me that experiment might demonstrate that this form of fuel might become so popular that it would pay to grind up small coal into dust and compress it. Write me your ideals as to the practicability &c.

Yours Truly,

Not new- see his letter in reply.

Hon. T. F. Davidson-

Mar. 12/97

City.

Dear Sir;

I have heard from Edwards in regard to sale of a few acres of South end of Vance land. He says he will not cut out a few acres for less than $50.00 per acre. If you are willing to give that for what you want in the shape you want it, I shall be pleased to go with you and see what you want and what the shape of it will be, how it will leave the _ or, and write Edwards. Of course I want a trade made.
Yours Truly,

W. B. Gwyn

[Partly illegible]
O. E. Edwards, Esq.

Mar. 12, 1897

Charlotte, N. C

My Dear Mr. Edwards;

It has been a good while since…I hope you and Mrs. Edwards…recovered your health and are now…without interruption by annoying pains…in the physical being. Creature Comfort…valued by those who have never suf-…from lack of it, but Lord! How our eyes…the beauties and charms of it- “as we growed!”…been pretty well this winter- that is, we have…called in a doctor, though several time we…more or less. My weight has increased considerably, since I stopped smoking &c. I…with tomorrow, but tomorrow has never…yet.
Asheville has suffered a long season of wet weather, and is doubt disgusted many strangers immensely, especially the class that are away from home for the first…expect to encounter “one legged races of men”…Fogs, desiccated rains, dehydrated vapors, arid…and parching sleet. I think it was Carlisle who said that “England was peopled with 35,000,000 inhabitants, mostly fools.” And I wouldn’t be surprised if it was, O. E. E. who told me Carlisle said it.
I shall be very glad to hear from you. With kind regards from “us all to you uns.”
Yours Most Truly,

W. B. Gwyn

O. E. Edwards Jr. Esq.

Washington, D. C.

March 17, 1897

My Dear Mr. Edwards;

Your two favors of recent date were duly received and I am pleased to note a very decided change in your spirits as to the prospects of our controversy with Lyman. It is perfectly natural that you should take even too rosy a view of the situation after reading my brief, and that the barometer would fall several points if you could now read a brief prepared by the counsel for the other side. That, of course we shall not have the privilege of doing, but I intend, after this session of court is over, to prepare an argument on the other side thus forestalling in some extent what they will probably say. Some time before very long, when the press of court business is off of the attorneys on the other side, so that I can get their serious attention, I will approach them with reference to the proposed compromise, but the matter will have to be attended to when the time is ripe for it.

I wrote Davidson a note offering him the strip he wants, at $50 per acre, provided it would leave the other land in good shape. He made no reply, but said to me in the court room yesterday that he was “amused” at your proposition, and that he had purchased the Dave Vance place adjoining at about twenty dollars per acre, (107) acres and that there was a considerable proportion of bottom land on it. I did not twit him with the fact that he had recommended the loan to Vance and had said that the land was worth all round $40.00 per acre. Times have changed greatly since then, and besides it must be allowed that it was assessed for taxation at $25.00.

Regarding your inquiry as to the statute of limitations, as affecting your right to bring an additional suit in the federal court, I will just quote Sac. 69, Cap. 119, Laws 1325-

“No action for the recovery of real property sold for the nonpayment of taxes shall lie unless the same be brought within three years after the sheriff’s deed is made as above provided; Provided that where the owner of such real property sold as aforesaid at the time of such sale be am in or insane, or convict in the penitentiary, or under any other legal disability, three years after such disability shall be removed shall be allowed such person, his heirs or legal representatives, to bring action.
You will observe that this section seems to contemplate only actions brought to recover land, and seems to have been provided for after the purchaser at the tax sale, or the owner of the land. My opinion is that an action to remove a cloud from the title (which is the kind of action we have no pending in the Superior Court, and the kind we would bring in federal court, we being in possession.), would certainly not be barred under three years, and might survive for a longer period. Date of sheriff’s deed is July 22^nd,  1895. Your father is here and is looking better than I have seen him for a long time. I gave him the letter you sent to my care.

Mr. Brown,

March 17, 1897

Grove Street,

City.

Dear Sir;

I called at your house twice today, but you were out on both occasions. I called some weeks ago on Mrs. Brown, who said you might consider the purchase of real estate in Asheville upon your return from the East. I would be much pleased to have you call at my office in Drhumor Block, Patton Ave., where I can show you maps and other data, ad I shall be very much pleased to go and show you property in and around the city. I have some very choice properties for sale, and among them one or two particularly good bargains. For some of these I am sole agent, and as to others I have the lowest prices direct from the owners.
Hoping that you will call and see what I have to offer, I am Yours Very Truly.

Mrs. Geo W. Pack,

Mar 22/97

Holland House, N. Y.

Dear Mrs. Pack,

I trust that Mrs. Rollins and Mrs. Farman have conveyed to you and to Mr. Pack my assurances of deep solicitude and regard for Mr. Pack in his illness.
Of course I would have written had not Mrs. Farman been in the house and in constant Communication. I doubt if either you or Mr. Pack appreciates the profound sense I feel and have felt for years of the importance of Mr. Pack’s influence upon my life. He is inseparably associated in my mind with many events to me mutable, in my humble career. In the brief period of prosperity I enjoyed, he was pleased at my success and contributed to it by loan of money to enable me to operate more extensively; When fortune turned against me he grieved with me, and lent a helping hand, and cheered me with encouraging words; and when my heart was torn and bleeding by the loss of my children, he comforted me. It has been my good fortune to know many good and wise people, whose example I ought to have followed- but it is my deliberate judgment that out of all men I have known well, Mr. Pack combines to greatest degree those three great qualities of humanity that evoke most admiration-goodness, wisdom, and self control.

I suppose Mr. Pack is hardly yet well enough to be bothered about business matters. It seems necessary that I consult you, or Mr. Charles, or Mr. Rollins, (in case Mr. Pack is not asked) in regard to a matter that will come up next Saturday the 27^th. Possibly Mr. Pack has spoken to you about it. He loaned W. R. Young and wife $5,000 on their house on Charlotte Street, opposite the hospital- the debt is now nearly $6,000. I have advertised the place and the sale takes place next Saturday- Now I believe Mr. Pack would rather have a somewhat smaller amount cash than his debt, than to take in the property at the sale. I think I can sell the property for a good deal more than the debt by subdivision and taking time- but I might not- anyway my opinion is that Mr. Pack would rather take less now. There is no great probability of anybody being at the sale with as much as $5,000 cash to give for the property, but I believe if Mr. Pack was standing by, and that amount was bid he would let it go, and he might not run it as high as that.
If I hear nothing to contrary, I will just do as near, what I think Mr. Pack would do, as I can.
Kindly present my affectionate regards to Mr. Pack and my best wishes for his speedy recovery, and remember me to all the other members of the family. I hope you are as well as possible under the condition.
Most respectfully yours,

W. B. Gwyn

Geo. W. Pack Esq.

Holland House, N. Y.

My Dear Sir;

I was much pleased to receive your favor of the 25^th inquiring about the Vance monument matter. I did not get to see Mr. Rankin today, but we are to have a meeting of the committee next week, and I will lay your letter before them and write you the exact status. I feel sure that Mr. Rankin, being the careful man that he is, has followed your instructions, especially if you gave them in writing; if he has actually turned over the money to Mr. Sawyer, it will be no trouble to get it back from him I Think, as the money is no doubt in the Battery Park Bank, and Mr. Sawyer has never been asked to make any report to the committee treasurer. I think nothing has been done in the way of transfer of the title of the public square to the Vance Monument Committee, and the matter stands as it was. I remember speaking to Mr. Adams about it in the summer, and my recollection is that he expressed the opinion that nothing else was necessary to complete the dedication. But I appreciate your anxiety on the point and shall not let the matter rest as it be. We have had very poor success in getting subscriptions, as I think I wrote you, and the sentiment of the committee seems now to be that we should proceed to build the monument with what we have in sight, which, of course, precludes all idea of statuary. I have Powell entirely with me in the contribution that nothing but the very best is

Made the front line 78.88 feet. I think it would be better not to make it over 75 feet, and that ought to leave the back line 101.12 feet.

I think there is but little prospect of his making any arrangement whatever as coffin will probably find that his man will not let out his money with better security these ticklish times, and then Coffin wants six per cent commission on a two year loan, all in advance, so that the Col. will find his blanket a little too narrow even if he gets the blanket.
Times are awfully dull in my lines of business. The town is full of people, but it wouldn’t be if they could have foreseen the cold weather we are having, and they want to get away, many of them. There is hardly any real estate selling, and the law practices are exceedingly dull. I heard two old lawyers say no, one saying that he had been practicing twenty seven years and had never seen it so dull. I suspect he forgets, but it is certainly dull enough for me, as I have not made office rent this month, over my other little office expenses. In regard to my commissions on this Young sale, I would be very much relieved to know that it is agreeable to you that I should enter against the usual 5% charge, to go upon either the house debt interest, or the personal money debt of last Fall, or part on one and part on the other. I forgot to mention that the taxes are not paid on the Young property- he says the assessment is $3,500, which would make the taxes some $73.50. I can pay them with a balance to the credit of W. B. Gwyn Trustee[?], which…

Has stood at $56.94 since Sept. 5^th, last, and other funds coming into my hands from rents &c., or you can send check as you prefer. I see no say to escape paying them, as the Col. has nothing and is out of employment still.

I inclose the deed from myself as trusted, which you can send back to me for registration.
Kindly say so Mrs. Rollins that I am exceedingly obliged for the clipping from the Tribune of the 20^th, the editorial on Mr. Gladstone’s message, and that I intend to paste it in my scrap book. It must be a great comfort to you to have so faithful and capable on amanuensis when you are not feeling well enough to write. I hope soon to see your sign manual again, ad better still to see you in the flesh at your Buncombe home.

With kind regards and best respects to yourself and family, I remain, as ever
Yours Truly,

W. B. Gwyn

Geo. W. Pack Esq.

March 29, 1897

Holland House, N.Y.

My Dear Sir;

Mr. Cowley has paid off in full the three notes of $237.50 each given for bal. purchase of lots No 13 and 17 of Blk VI and wants to pay off his three notes of $137.50 each bal purchase money of lot No. I, Block II, but says the Battery Park Bank has not the notes. I do not understand why this is, but I suppose you did not turn them over. The date of the latter notes (as per deed of trust I have), is May 30, 1896, the first mentioned being date May 28.

I promised to write you about them, but I would not worry, as Mr. Cowley will not be seriously incommoded by delay, and can only claim stoppage of interest from date-he is not selling the lot, but simply wants to pay the debt to get rid of it.

I do hope this new week marks a new era of improvement in health for you. I wrote you a long letter Saturday 27^th. The weather has moderated here, but is clouding up again to weep some more.
Since writing the above, I have seen Mr. J. E. Rankin in regard to the $2,000 and he says it still stands in his name as trustee for you, and I suppose he will wait your orders to turn it over to the Vance Monument Association.
I believe the Young property will have to be resold, owing to a mistake of the register of deeds in his entry on the back of the deed of trust, by which it was made to appear that the deed is registered in book 10, while in fact it is registered in book 19.
It occurred to me that No. 10 was a low number for as recent a date as 1890, so when I was at the office this morning I discovered the error on examination of the record. I advertised the property and stated that the deed was registered in book 10.

Hon. W. A. Hoke-

Licolnton, N.C.

Dear Sir;

I was sorry to see by the papers that you had fallen ill at Morganton and had to leave the bench for the bed. I hope you are out again by this time. I have the morning an inquiry for your best price on you lot No. 6, which may be wanted by a man who is considering the purchase of No. 7 of the same block, with a view of building thereon. I am assured by the agent who comes to see me that the proposing purchaser wishes the lot for his own use, and has asked him to see what he can buy Lots Nos. 4, 5, and 6 for, so that he can protect himself against undesirable improvements.
I said that you would hardly sell No. 6 without No. 3, as that lot was not desirable to hold by itself, and the agent seemed to think this man would also take No. 3, but he would not pay a fancy price for any of the property. I find by reference to the price list that you paid for Mr. Pack $200 for No. 3, $400 for No. 6, $550 for No. 11, and $600 for No. 12- This would make $1,750 for all—but Mr. Pack discounted the price I find, by reference to the deed of trust, and let you have the four for $1,500, which was taking off exactly 1/7 of the price, or some 14-1%.

The agent wants to hear as soon as possible your lowest price, and I told him I thought I could get an answer this week. I inclose a map showing the lots &c.

Geo. W. Pack Esq.,

March 29, 1897

New York.

My Dear Sir;

Referring to the error in advertisement of Young’s property mentioned in my letter of this morning, it is not necessarily a fatal one, as the property was fully described in the notice, and I can easily correct the error in the deed to you. Nobody was hurt by the misreference as no doubt the court would hold if any fuss was ever made about it. There will be no record evidence of the error. In thinking the matter over, I have thought it might be a good plan to get a quitclaim from Young and wife, and, as I think the reminder of the debt hopelessly hopeless, and believe you also regard it in the same light, I thought perhaps you might agree to forgive them the debt in consideration of a quitclaim. You see the matter now stands quite different from what it did before a public sale according to the terms of the deed of trust. A fair trial has been made, in the manner agreed upon by all parties, and in accordance with usage, and approved by courts of law and equity; it has been demonstrated that the property is not worth as much as the debt amounted to, in open market after due notice, and therefore no suspicion of oppression can obtain by reason of your taking a deed from them in addition to the one from me. I inclose a deed that covers the case if the plan meets your approval, which kindly return with instructions.

My Dear Willie;

Asheville, N.C., March 30, 1897.

I have just received your kind favor of the 28^th. Awful strain put upon her devoted children attending her. It looks like the very irony of fate that no one whose real life was one of such devotion to her children and to all with whom she came in contact who needed her help, should, in her last days be the irresponsible agent of so much misery to the ones dearest to her. There may be people who can understand these dispensations, and there are a great many who pretend that they do. To my mind they are as incomprehensible as the mysteries of space.

I am at a loss to know what you mean by saying that I wrote you that I knew of some mismanagement at Elkin, and would write you more fully if I had to. I find it in my letter book only two letters to you. If there is another it is not indexed. One is dated July 3^rd 1895, and relates altogether to a proposed purchase on part of the farm by Hendrix. The other is dated Dec. 19^th, 1896, and in it no mentioned is made of your presidency of the Elkin Mfg Co. There is an expression in it something like what you write, but it relates to the threatened suit by the Franklins against the Co. I advise you to keep well up with that suit, and said I would write more fully if desired. By that I only meant that you should see what pleadings were filed and keep up with “the record.” For instance, if a complaint is filed, and no answer filed replying to its allegations, the plaintiff is liable to move for a judgment for want of an answer. It is astonishing what an attorney can get a judge to do in this way, if there is nobody there to oppose a motion. The judge is compelled to rely very largely upon the professional honor of the attorneys of the court, and he seldom reads the judgment he signs.
Now I remember writing you a letter, which I probably did not copy into my letter book, in which I warned you of the danger of being president of a company of whose affairs you are in comparative ignorance. It is a perilous position. You stand charged with a responsibility, without any advantage connected with the position and by occupying the position you are stopped from complaining of the management when you find that things have gone wrong. If you take advantage of your right to keep posted by frequent investigation of the books, and supervision of the affairs, it is quite different, and you might thus prevent great injury and damage to your interests by being president. That is the way it looks to me, speaking from a theoretical point of view. Is not the position well taken? There are exceptions to most rules, and if there is anything in this case to take it out of the rule, then the theory does not apply. It seems to me that, if I were in your place, I would take the position that you could not afford to occupy a situation that charged you with such grave responsibilities without putting yourself in…

Full possession of all information regarding the status and manage mentioned keeping hereafter or in touch with all details. That is the stand I would take if I intended to longer remain in office.

It might be safer to remain a while, now that you are in, in order to investigate, and see what has been done. If I intend to come out of the office, I would just assign the true reason, as above but even in that case, I would make the occasion of my resignation an excuse for thoroughly examination of the Co.’s affairs, as you have an undoubted right to do. If everything is straight and square nobody will object, but you will be cheerfully assisted. If everything is not exactly square, then it should make no difference who objects.
In regard to T. L. Gwyn

S demand upon you to receive and cancel Mrs. Fred Foard’s stock and issue new stock to him, on the ground that the title to the stock has passed to him by virtue of his public sale of it in pursuance of an express or implied power of the seal invested in him by the pledge of the stock by Foard for a loan, there are many questions that arise, and I am glad you hesitated about complying with his request. What position do Foard and his wife take in the matter? You say nothing about that. I find by a brief examination of the law that a company must be very careful in such cases, and that the corporation is liable in damages to the true owner of stock improperly transferred upon the books. The question is, who is the true, actual owner of the stock? Stock can be sold, and the title to it can pass, without actual endorsement on the certificate. Stock can even be sold for which no certificate has been issued. Now, I have grave doubts as to who is the owner of this stock. In the first place, Foard’s wife may have never consented to the pledge of the stock. In the next place, T. L. Gwyn had no right to buy at this own sale, and the fact that another man bought for him does not alter the case in his favor. Such sales are not upheld by North Carolina Courts. He should have sued for his debt, and got a decree for the sale of the stock, a commissioner appointed to sell it, with an express provision for T. L. Gwyn to purchase the stock at the sale if he became the highest bidder for it. If he undertook to sell the stock at private sale, he should have let it go to the highest bidder other than himself or his agents. You have express notice, so it seems, that he bought at his own sale, and I am of the opinion that his title is questionable, if not void. It is more than probable that there is a dispute as to the ownership of this stock, and I think you ought to let them settle that matter in or out of court, before action on your part. Who has been getting the dividends of that stock since it was pledged?

Do not hesitate about writing me again, and the sooner the better, before the matter gets out of my head.
I saw by the Charlotte Observer, that Hendrix had bought T. L. Os place at Elkin.

I rec’d Laura’s letter-8^th-seems to me I have answered it.

Geo. W. Pack Esq.

Holland House, N.Y.

My Dear Sir;

Your several favors of the 30^th Ult. were received this morning, and I will first express to you my heart-felt thanks for your accession to my request in regard to commissions on the Young sale, and thus taking such a load off my mind. I am not less gratified by the expressed motive for your allowing me to skip from the “line of shot” of your attack upon the “Buncombe County Mortgage Foreclosure Trust,” a concern with which my connection has heretofore been quite unprofitable to myself, and, as it would seem, rather expensive to you. The interest on the house debt had been paid up to November first, Mrs. Gwyn having paid one month, so that the credit of eight months so kindly allowed for the $240.00 Young-sale-commissions, would pay the interest up to July 1^st, 1897. If you will please date the proposed receipt April 1^st., it will correspond with entries on my books.
Next, let me say I am much pleased at realizing that you felt well enough to dictate so many letters to me in one day, especially as it is most likely that you had other correspondence.

I think you had not received the letter I wrote Monday inclosing a quitclaim deed which I thought we had better get from Young and wife.
The Cowley notes (three of $137.50 each) I find by my letter book I [illegible].

Mailed to you, and I have no doubt your suspicion that they may be in “cold storage” at your house here is well founded. I shall suggest to Mr. Cowley the plan you propose of depositing the money against them.

I note your full remarks about the Vance Monument matter, and whenever I succeed in getting a full meeting I will lay it before the committee.

I will give the matter of your sewer rent due from the city my attention and write you about it.
I note your position as to pricing part or all of the Young property to Young. I think he has about given up hope of repurchasing, and I am glad you wrote as you did. As soon as you care to take up the subject, I would be glad to have a price to ask the general public, or rather such of them as want to know your price.
I saw Miss Farman yesterday. The damp weather keeps her and others “sniffling” with bad colds.
With kind regards and best respects, I remain,
Yours Sincerely

Geo. W. Pack Esq.

April 1, 1897

Holland House, N.Y.

My Dear Sir;

[Repeat of letter 637]

[Repeat of letter 638]

P.S. Your two favors of yesterday just to hand- the one inclosing the Young quitclaim deed, and the other relating to Maschker and Loder. The former has long ago gone to St. Louis to live, as I understand, but I think some of his family are here. I will see what I can do.
It was like a drink of champagne to see your hand writing again and I trust that I shall see a great deal of it in the future.

[Geo. W. Pack in A/C W.B.Gwyn

1897]

K. A. Maschker Esq.

April 2, 1897

Care A. E. Schilling Esq.

207 North 11^th Street,

East St. Louis, I11.

Dear Sir;

I have just received a letter from Mr. Pack, who is detained by illness in New York. He has never been back at Asheville since he went away last summer to Europe, and he thinks you are still living at Asheville. He says it is time you were paying him back the money he loaned you, and he wanted me to see you and collect.
Please write to me as soon as you receive this letter, and tell them what you expect to do in the matter, and send me some money when you write if you can.
I hope you are prospering in your new home, and making money, as you deserve to do.
Yours Truly

Geo. W. Pack Esq.,

April 2, 1897

Holland House, N.Y.

My Dear Sir;

I herewith inclose statement for month of March. I find that all of Maschker’s people have at last gone, including his son-in-law, Schilling, the tailor, whose address I obtain, and I have written to Maschker in his care. I think Maschker’s family are extravagant, and I am afraid his wife does not worry over his debts as much as he does. But we shall see what he says in reply.

This morning brought rain again, and cold. It has been a most unfortunate season for Asheville, as affecting future patronage, especially. I hope the weather is not proportionately bad in New York this morning.

I hope to get a quorum of the Vance Monument Committee this P.M., and will write you tomorrow.

Yours Very Truly

Mrs. J. L. Morgan

April 2, 1897

Chatham, Va.

Dear Madam;

Your favor of the 20^th Ult. received. I have a house that will be for rent in a few days on Charlotte Street, about a half mile from centre of city, a room y frame house with a large lot of about three acres, mostly rear ground, fine for garden, &c, though the lot if about 150 feet front on Street. It is right on the electric car line, and quite near the Oaks hotel and the Female College. It is also near the city hospital. It is a very fair place for boarders, but I do not know the exact number of rooms, some twelve or fifteen though, I think. I guess I can let you have this house from 30 to 35 dollars a month, for a year term. If you think this place might suit, write me again and I will give fuller particulars if desired.

I think I know of a grocery business your brother-in-law can buy. It is a very good stand, and the rent moderate, and the stock can probably be bought reasonably if it is gone at in the right way.

Yours Truly

Geo. W. Pack Esq.,

New York.

My Dear Sir;

I went before the board of [illegible] last night and got the matter of your sewer sent referred as a [illegible] –tigate and act, and today after along search of getting the bills of the amounts paid to the Intermontane R’y Co., and to you, on the [?] January 1897, in full up to that date, and they caused the clerk to issue a warrant for a year’s rent, $240.00 up to Jan’y 7^th 1897. We also found the contract between you and the city, dated Jan’y 7^th 1896, and I endorsed it with the amount paid today. That contract does not appear to be registered , nor spread upon the records of the Board. I have forgotten whether it was executed in duplicate- if not, you certainly should have a copy, as the contract is very liable to be destroyed or lost. If you have no copy, and so write me, I go straightway and get a certified copy from the clerk.
I deposited the $240.00 in the Battery Park Bank to your credit today, and herewith send you duplicate deposit receipt.
Mr. Conley came in and deposited to your credit $432.33, in full for these notes of $137.50 earned, with interest to date, and I indeed[?] deposit receipt for that also. I cancelled the deed of trust and endorsed on it a memorandum of the facts in regard to the whereabouts of the [?].

No…credit has been paid up for his Montford lot, where he lives…, and interest. He brought the notes marked paid by the B.F. [?] and I cancelled the deed of trust of record. The notes…were made by Zeb. Webster, lot No 11-Blk 9.
Cosley[?]’s payment was bal on  lot 1, Blk 11.

Reginald L[?] came in this afternoon, and exhibited receipts from…for $9.00, $18.00, and $11.00, dated respectively.

Geo. W. Pack Esq.,

Holland House, N. Y.

My Dear Sir;

I wrote you Saturday, but spoiled the letter in copying. It is not the first bloody work that this new ribbon has done and I guess it lacks a deal of being the first new ribbon that has done bloody work.

I received yesterday three notes from you, and this morning 2. But first let me write in substance what I intended to send you by Saturday’s mail.

On Friday night I went before the Board of Aldermen and got the matter of your sewer and water rent due from the city, referred to a committee with “power to act”, the true old Blanton style. I says to myself “That means a check right away.” But there was a considerable “difference in the morning.” The committee seemed dispose to investigate before acting, and we did investigate for about two hours, part of which was taken up in waiting for the clerk, but we at last straightened the matter out and found that you had been paid up to January 7^th 1896, as we saw by inspection of your receipt on file. We also found the original contract, executed by and between you and the city, dated the said 7^th day of Jan’y 1896, providing for a lease of the sewer and water lines from the 2^nd of August 1895, for a term of twenty years, at $240.00 per annum, payable during each year in which the rent accrues, with option for the city to purchase at any time during the twenty years at $4000.

After a good deal of discussion by the committee, they finally adopted my suggestion to pay just another year’s rent, up to Jan’y 7^th 1897, and they gave me a warrant for the money, which I deposited in the Battery Park Bank to your credit and herewith inclose the dep. slip.

The reason I set out the terms of the contract as above, is because I doubt if you have a copy, and the one I saw seems never to have been registered, and many get lost or destroyed—most sure to in 20 years. If you have no copy please write me and I will make one and have it certified by the clerk.

Mr. Cowley came in Saturday and paid into the Battery Park Bank to your credit $432.33 in full for the three notes of $137.50 bal. purchase money of lot No. 1, block 2, and I cancelled the Deed of Trust and endorsed on it a memorandum of the facts. He will call on you for the notes when you come back.

Mr. Locke Craig brought me the notes made by Zeb. Weaver for the bal. $500.00, on lot No. 11 Block IX, and I cancelled the D.T.—Notes were stamped paid by the Battery Park Bank. This is Craig’s home lot where he now lives, and the papers were made out in Weaver’s name on account of Mrs. Craig’s absence from town.

Reginald Loder came in on Saturday and exhibited receipts in the shape of B.P. Bank dep.slips, signed by Rankin, for $9.00, $18.00, and $11.00, dated respectively June 6^th, Sept. 2^nd, and Nov. 18^th, 1896.

It would seem from this that you were mistaken when you wrote that “he had paid nothing since May 1896 unless he paid it to Rankin last month.” He says he thinks he has some more receipts at home and would look yesterday and bring them in this morning, but he did not report. I think he showed us all he has. He says he can sell the place for six hundred dollars cash, and wanted to know what I thought about the probability of your buying back the place at a larger figure. He said he had added a room to sit since buying it from you, at a cost of about $60.00. He says you sold to him at $750.00. He said Mr. Grant told him he could get him $600.00 in cash, but I judge that was some time ago, and it is probably that Grant could not now get him the money. Reginald said he would try to pay me something for you about the 10^th. He says Mr. Clair, late proprietor of Kenilworth Inn, “left him,” to the amount of sixty dollars, and that that is the cause of his failure to pay you more.
I send you today as requested, by registered mail, the “Lee et al note”, $5,000.00 with credits endorsed $1,000 on October 16, 1894, and $1,500.00 on June 8^th 1896, both on the principal, with sundry credits for interest. Also the Campbell note of $2,000.00 dated Feb 1^st 1897, due three years after date. Also the Rogers Grant note of $1,600.00 credited with $900 paid on principal as of Oct 1, 1894, and sundry interest credits.
The only other notes of yours I seem to have are the Young note and some small note amounting to $85.00 made by a man named Pinner for bal. purchase of lot 3 in block 1, all of which I am keeping for a purpose.

I note your request to make you a list of your lands worth ten dollars, and will do so forthwith and thank you 2.

I am astonished to hear you have been having sunshine in N.Y. for we have had the reverse for such a long time. The sun was out a good while this morning, but it is now overcast again, and as for yesterday! You just ought(n’t) to have seen the rain come down.

List of Lands in and near Asheville, N.C. of Geo. W. Pack

Geo. W. Pack Esq.,

April 6^th, 1897

Holland House, New York.

My Dear Sir;

Col. Young came in yesterday with then quitclaim deed duly executed and I surrendered his note cancelled &c. I then deposited for record the quitclaim deed and the deed from myself as trustee. The Col. Is anxious to rent the property, saying that his family are opposed to moving before Pall, and that he thinks they can arrange to pay the rent provided it is not too high.

I can’t see now that, having given him back his note, we can consistently deal with him otherwise than upon a strictly business basis, and I take it that it is simply a question, 1^st, of what the property will bring and 2^nd., if Young rents it, can he secure the payment of the rent. I would like to be in a position to quote you as taking the stand that, Young having failed to pay you a debt, you must have security from him in future dealings.
Now, in regard to probably returns from the property in rents, the propinquity of the hospital will, unquestionably, be a great bugbear in the way of renting or selling, I fear. It is very true that good people are still living in the vicinity, but don’t you suppose that is because they were there before the hospital was established and cannot well get away? I doubt if one of them would now go and purchase the very homes they live in. I am perhaps feeling too blue today to do the property justice. Kindly write me your views about rentals. I had thought $30.00 was the lowest we ought to take, but maybe we shall have to take $5.00 or even $10.00 less than that.

Yesterday afternoon I  took the order to the Bank of the Just, together with the key Miss Farman brought, and went through your box and this morning I sent you three registered packages, large linen lined envelopes kindly furnished by the president of the B of the J.
I numbered them 1, 2 & 3., and took a list of the superscription upon the several envelopes holding the notes &c., and inclose you a copy in case any of the letters get lost. The P of the B of the J recommended expressing them instead of registering, but I thought of the boy standing on the burning deck eating P nuts by the peck and presently catching it in the neck and acted accordingly.

I noticed the package marked “Asheville Sewer and Water,” and looked in it, and found that you have a duplicate of the contract referred to in a former letter.

I also looked through the two packages marked respectively, Asheville Land Notes, “and Sundry Notes,” fully expecting to find in one or the other the Cowley notes. I thought you would like me to do this, but I was sorry I did it, as I did not find them, and saw other notes that did not concern me. If I had reflected, I would have left the matter as it was for you to return them in case they were among the other papers. I think the Cowley notes must be in your desk at home, as you would have been more likely to send them to the Batter Park Bank to be kept with your other notes than to put them in your safe-deposit-box, yclept “Cold Storage.”

Following is a list of papers in the letters-

No. 1. N.A. Reynolds—Ashville sewer and Water---Asheville and buncombe County taxes and sometimes other taxes---W.B. Gwyn and Helen C. Gwyn---R.H. Loder----Robert Philip (John Martin)---Battery Park Bank Shares---Asheville Land Notes---Sundry notes.
No. 2. W. A. Holland and wife---Assurance Lloyds of America---E.J. Armstrong----E. F. Bacon----W.O. Cory----C.O.Basset----M.J.Bearden----Land Contracts Peter Lockman, F. W. Hubbard-----Henry Stewart-----

No. 3. I. F. Graves----Breese and Penland----W. R. Penniman et als—John Claney------R. Bingham, bonds----

April 6, 1897

Geo. W. Pack Esq.

Holland House, New York

My Dear Sir;

I inclose the land lists. I made the short one first, and thought you might like a more detailed one, so made the longer four page list, and then added the summary or analytical statement hoping they will fill the bill.

Yours Very Truly

W. B. Gwyn

Southern Law book Exchange

April 6^th, 1897

Raleigh, N.C.

Gentlemen;

Your circulars receiven. I have a few old books I will sell or exchange for law books.
2. Vols. Smith’s Chancery Practice---1839
2. Vols. (3 parts-3 books), Leading Cases in Eq., White and Tudor notes
Iredell’s Digest, 3 Vols.
3 Vols. Chitty’s Pleading---1855

1 Vol. (3^rd) Greenleaf on Evidence---1857
9 Vols. A to Jer-New American Encyclopoedia--- 1860

These last are well bound, aindeed are all the others. It is the same encycl. that forms part of Appleton’s Ency. now on the market. Appleton published it first for Chas. W. Dans. and others, or had some arrangement with Dana.
Let me know if you want these,

April 7, 1897

Chas. N. Hartshorne Esq.
Jersey City, N. J.

April 7, 1897

My Dear Sir;

Enclosed please find my check for forty dollars next for April. There is a balance due you on Feb’y next, but I intend to have the porch pillars reworked on, moulding repaired and wood re-varnished too. When completed, or the first of next month, will render full statement since last account. No news- small inquiry now for real estate. Extremely unfavorable weather for more than a month past.

Geo. W. Pack Esq.

April 8, 1897

New York

My Dear Sir;

Your two favors in regard to bill paid G. A. Greer per order of Richmond and I herewith inclose the bill as requested, paid March 1^st $9.69, and it appears that it was for oats and bran for the horses. I don’t know now, the circumstances, but it is reasonable to suppose that I was satisfied where I paid the bill, that I ought to pay it, and it seems I was right- it seems also that where I came to write up your account I did not take the trouble to look up the bills, in which I was certainly wrong, those thus caused you to suspect Harry- I have no idea he knows it- I hope not I am mighty glad to hear you are walking about. May the good work go on! Yours Sincerely,

W. B, Gwyn

E. W. Akin Esq.

Carlisle Ind.

April 8, 1897

Dear Sir;

Your favor rec’d. It is hard to pay what could be obtained for your lot just now. There were a very considerable number of lots sold for improvement last year, but very few indeed this year, so far. Prices were fair last year, and have not declined, but no reasl estate is selling, hardly. It is a good time now to sell your lot. In my opinion, your lot will sell much better as soon as some slightly better lots in an immediate neighborhood are sold, and I am afraid you could not…over $1,000, if that, before some of these lots are sold. The best…can is to give me your largest price, if your ideas have…down only, or if, for any reason, you are more anxious to sell…in formerly. There are so many lots on the market it is bound to get offers. People simply compare prices. Write Soon, Yours Truly

W. B. Gwyn

Mr. John Kimberly
April 9, 1897

Asheville, N.C.

Dear Sir;

Mr. Wilson, one of the parties who have leased the dummy line for this season, tells me the pipes have been [?] from the [?] at the big trestle, and says he is informed you look them. Your will remember that I expressly reserved those pipes, telling you they would be needed, and if you have taken them you should replace them. Please let me hear from you on the [?]

Yours Truly,

W. B. Gwyn

Geo. W . Pack Esq.
Holland House, N. Y.

My Dear Sir;
[“Spoiled,” partly illegible]

Received of Geo. W. Pack Esq. a note signed by J.H. Lee, N. W. Girdwood. B. M Lee and J. B Cain, originally, for $5,000.00, reduced by $500 payments on principal of $1,000 and $1,500 respectively, to $2,500. Girdwood’s name having been erased June 8^th 1896 by consent of all parties.

W. B. Gwyn

April 9, 1897
Dear Bro-
Your  favor 7^th rec’d. I cannot pay the interest on the Batter Park Bank note now. My business has been practically nothing for months- did not make office expenses last month. I don’t suppose the Bank people will annoy you any time soon about the interest on $500 to which some I think you redeemed the note when here last.
With love to all,

Your affectionate brother,

W. B. Gwyn 

April 10, 1897

Messrs. Ogden & Dillon, contractors,
City.

Gentlemen;

You may go to Col. Young’s residence, now the property of Mr. Geo. W. Pack, 26 Charlotte Street, and estimate for renewing the floor and balustrade of upper front porch, patching roof where needed, and repairing floor in basement in a closet in N. E. corner, and Col. Young will show you.

Yours Truly

Maj. W. W. Rollins

April 9, 1897

City.

Dear Sir;

The National Bank of Asheville is threatening to sell the property of the Boilston Gold Mining Company under an old judgment taken in 1890, March term, amounting to $488, and some cents. I find by my books that I paid on this judgment $275.00 on the 16^th of September, 1893, and the books of the Bank show a corresponding credit, dated the 18^th, which is no doubt for the same money, there being a difference of only two days in our books. The docket is not credited with any amount paid at any time, so I am informed. Mr. Barnard, late president of the bank, declares that the $275.00 paid as above stated, was to be credited upon the judgment, and was not for any other account.
Now I remember you said to me in the presence of some other members of the Company, some months ago, that you had paid to Mr. Barnard a sum of money to be credited upon this judgment., I mentioned this to Mr. Barnard, but he says you are mistaken—that what you paid him was for credit on a debt you owed the bank, secured by some of your stock in the company. If you can remember any of the circumstances connected with the transaction, and are still of the opinion that you paid money to be credited upon the judgt., please let me hear from you on the subject.

Geo. W. Pack Esq.,

April 9, 1897

Holland House, N.Y.

My Dear Sir;

I received this morning the “Lee et als’ note, for wh’ I inclose receipt as requested. This afternoon I got your three formal acknowledgements of the three registered letters, and am thus pleased to learn that they got to you in due time.

I have been over to the Young property, and found the Col. at home. He showed me over the premises. There are three large rooms in the basement, besides two closets and an outer room that would be a very good one with some twenty five dollars spent in ceiling it. On the street floor there are five good rooms, two of them only 11 X 14, or thereabouts, and one other small room, say 8 X 12. On the top floor there are five good bed rooms. All the rooms except the parlor and the halls are whitewashed, the parlor and halls being papered.

The basement rooms are very well lighted, and the floors seem to be very sound except in one closet where they appear to be giving way from rotten joists. Col. Young says that, while the house is double boarded, there is no paper between rough boards and clap boards. There is a fair old stable, a chicken house, and apparently an excellent kitchen garden some two acres in the rear is an orchard, good looking apple trees in bearing, some fifteen feet high, and the ground well set in grass, which looks very beautiful now. There is no bathroom or water closet in house and I think no sewer.

2.

Connection, but the city water is in the yard.
Col. Young said his family wanted to remain there during the ensuing summer, and would pay twenty five dollars a month rent. He said his two sons Tom and young Wililam are getting together fifty dollars a month, and his wife expects to take three or four boarders and that hey can and will pay the rent. I said you would like to have some security, but he did not seem to think it was necessary or that he could give it. I don’t suppose he could give any.

There is so much there to go to rack and ruin in short order, with no one on the premises, that I hesitate to run the risk of a vacancy, even for a short time. We should of course, get some kind of a tenant at some kind of a price right off, but then Col. Young is at least up to both those qualifications. I think too that the Youngs would probably take better care of the property than anybody else (speaking of tenants as we usually find them), because they have got used to caring for the property as their own, and it may not occur to them to drop the habit. I told the Col. the rent would commence the first of this month if he takes it.
The front porch, the upper floor and balustrade, is completely given out and should be renewed at once. Shall I have it done?
The house needs painting too, being quite rusty. Shall I have that done, too? The roof is leaking some too. I shall have that done, no, undone.
I am glad to note increased strength and smoothness in your handwriting, which personal reference I hope you will excuse on the ground that you have your self referred to the subject. I hope you will get here in time to vote for J. E. Rankin for mayor.

Chas. L. Pack Esq.

April 10^th, 1897

Cleveland, Ohio

My Dear Sir;

Mr. W. W. Barnard to whom I spoke last year about your block No. 11, on Pearson Road, has several times approached me lately about the property. He has been looking at other property in the vicinity also. He is a very hard man to land, and equally hard to understand. I wish however, that you would write me whether there is any use to talk about a less price than four thousand dollars for the block, and if so, how much less, and I will use the best discretion at my command in dealing with him and others. Also if you will recede from your position of not selling except as a whole, let me know, and if you wish I will go out and examine the lots carefully and suggest a scale of prices, there being quite a difference in the respective values.
I hope the world uses you well these times, and that you health is good. The weather at Asheville has been most unfavorable this spring, and must have cost Asheville many thousands of dollars in direct and indirect ways. There are no doubt hundreds of people who came here for the first and last time for a few days stay, who will go down to their graves with the ineffaceable impression that the sun never shines here. Of course they do not think that with their minds, but the impression sits on the brain like a vase on the mantel.
With kind regards,
Yours Very Truly

Geo. W. Pack Esq.

April 10^th, 1897

New York

My Dear Sir;

Your several favors in one inclosure, dated the 8^th, were received this morning, and yours of 9^th this afternoon.
You do not acknowledge receipt of the land lists, sent you on the 6^th. I hope they reached you all right.
Of the people named in your letter, all four seem to have paid their taxes in full, except P. L. Shuford, who has paid only his State and county taxes and still owes his city taxes, amounting to $6.60. Of eight others looked after, A. F. Cook seems to owe a balance of $4.66 to the city, and the following have not yet settled state and County taxes, W. N. Roundy, $1.60, Ed. Burgess .68, T. C. Burgess, $4.68. Fitzgerald seems not have given in for taxation the lot No. 4, in block No. XVIII, corner Santo St. and Pearson Road. I think we run practically no risk on any of these, but we will watch the advertisements that may come out, and inspect the sales books later, and then we shall have until next May to buy or beg off from our friends on the mountain before they can get deeds for lots they buy.
I note your comments on sundry matters and will do the best I can. I am moving along the matte of the Vance Monument site investigation and will soon send you a compendium of very brilliant off hand opinions I have on hand.

Geo. W. Pack Esq.

April 13, 1897

Holland House, New York

My Dear Sir;

Chas. H. Hartshorne Esq.

April 16, 1897

Jersey City

My Dear Sir;

Mr. Baker wants to build a stable and carriage house on your lot, and wants to know if you will allow him anything for it when he leaves (he suggests half cost), and if not, will you allow him to take it off the lot. He says he has a bid of $35.00- it must be a remarkably poor affair. I promised him I would write to you today.
Yours Truly,

W. B. Gwyn
He says he would like an early reply.

Geo. W. Pack Esq.
Hotel Netherlands
New York-

My Dear Sir;

Your favor received announcing a change of hotel for a period. I do hope the change will accelerate your improvement in health. Central Park is “good for the eyes!”

You may remember my telling you that Mrs. Mills, on Sunset Drive, told me in the Fall of 1895 (I think it was), that Collier’s boys were taking wood, and that they denied it and said Mrs. Mills was misled. Well, maybe she was. But I can now prove by two good witnesses that both Tom and Dick Collier were seen and talked with by them at the “pavilion” on the dummy line, on two occasions, and that one time they had a wheelbarrow full of wood, and an axe, and the other time they said they were on their way after wood, having the wheelbarrow along that time also.
The occasion of any being told is that, on last Saturday afternoon the dummy shed, the “pavilion”, was burned down. There had been a small room built adjoining it last summer by the parties who leased the line, and the Collier boys had torn away part of the affair and built a rock chimney in the aperture, and had a habit of going and building a fire in there, and cooking chickens &c. They had been seen there on Saturday morning at 11 o’clock by my witnesses, and cautioned about setting the shed on fire, but promised to be

Careful. My witnesses are W. A. Wilson and H. E. Jenkins, the former being one of our N. Main street lot customers. They have leased the dummy line for the season, and went to accuse the Collier boys of the burning, which they of course denied, declaring they could prove an alibi. We might have difficulty in convicting them even if it could be proved that the fire resulted from the one they made in the morning. There would be no trouble in getting a judgment for damages, but a good deal of trouble in collecting one. They can be convicted of either larceny of misdemeanor as to your property, unless they convince the jury that they got the wood from some other land than yours which would seem to be almost impossible. The statue under which I think they can be convicted is section No. 1,070 of the Code, and is as follows:

“If any person, not being the present owner or bona fide claimant thereof, shall willfully and unlawfully enter upon the lands of another and carry off or be engaged in carrying off any wood or other kind of property whatsoever, growing or being thereon, the same being property of the owner of the premises, or under his control, keeping or care, such person shall, if the act be done with felonious intent, be guilty of larceny, and be punished as for that offence. And if not done with such intent, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”

I have searched the criminal statutes considerably and find only this one that seems to give pretty certain prospect of securing a conviction of those bad boys.

I have always ascribed to them sundry acts of depredation on property of the dummy line, turning loose cars, &c., and believe they were actuated by malice springing from a failure to get employment on the line when operated.

I tell you all these things so that you may see by what motivates besides protecting your property and my proposed witnesses are impelled in suggesting this prosecution. Defendant’s counsel could establish some feeling, at least, on the part of Wilson and Jenkins, which might got o discredit them, but they could prove good

Characters, and it ought to be possible to prove that of Collier boys bad. Of course they would have people to swear that their characters were good, also. I think Henry Scarborough would swear to having seen them on the land very often, and I think if he would come out with it, he would swear he saw them with wood. The father of the boys is a landscape gardener, and is away from Asheville most of the time. If you have any suggestions or instructions I shall of course be guided by your wishes in the matter. The prosecution of these boys might have a good effect as to others.

April 17, 1897

Geo W. Pack Esq.

Hotel Netherlands, N. Y.

Your favor received, declining to sell to Craig for less than $400.00. H is out of town. I will see him when he comes back. I will prepare the power of [?] to J. S. Merrimon as suggested, through it is with a rather sad heart, as the suggestion does not indicate an intention to return soon. Mr. J. E. Rumbough says he would like to buy some sod (lot 15 loads) at 25 cents per load, from the low buying lots in Block No. XII, on the branch near North Main St.- I inclose a slip for easy reply, as Rumbough says he is in a hurry. It is quite cold this morning- 40 degrees- My hand is so cold I can’t write “pretty.”
Yours very Truly,
W. B. Gwyn

Geo. W. Pack Esq.

April 19, 1897

Hotel Netherland, New York.

1606 Missouri Ave East  St. Louis, Ill.

My Dear Sir;

I let Col. Young have the place for six months, commenting April 1^st., at $25.00 a month payable monthly in advance.
I inclose a letter from Maschkar which has no doubt a very familiar ring to your ear. I think I have given you some reading matter of the same sort. The realities of life are very real, and the fragilities of man are very humiliating. Only the ignorant or blind can be happy.
I send new power of attorney to J. G. Merrimon as requested. The writing is quite pale, but my blacken some with time. What the country really needs is a black ink- an ink, sir that is black when it is wrote with. An ink, feller sittizens, that can be black as a nigger in looks, but all wool, a yard wide and white, when it comes to active service in a fountain pen with a fine point.
Yesterday was the finest Easter Sunday I remember seeing since I was a boy. Today is equally fine, and it seems that we are about to experience a consolation prize in the way of weather. There is one thing lacking to make it seem natural, and that is yourself, driving Thistle, and dropping in of a morning.

[Illegible, see #668]

J. E. Rumbough Esq.

City

April 21, 1897

Dear Sir;

I have heard from Mr. Pack in regard to your request about getting the sod. He responds favorably. Yours Truly,

W. B. Gwyn

Geo. W. Pack Esq.,

April 19, 1897

Hotel Netherland, New York.

My Dear Sir;

I have concluded not to wait longer about sending you opinions of several members of the Asheville Bar in reference to validity &c., of the proceedings heretofore had, and I inclose abstract of what was said as suggested by Messrs. J. H. Merrimon, J. S. Adams, W. W. Jones, T. H. Cobb, and P. A. Sondley. I expected to get more later, from the latter; but the ground had been gone over pretty thoroughly before I saw him, leaving but little for him to originate. Much of what I send is the result of my own investigations, suggested mainly by Merrimon in the brief interview I had with him. I made several efforts to see Gen. Davidson, but he seems to use his office principally for business, and goes away after he gets through and is therefore not easily seen there. He promised to “come by” my office and talk with me about it. This was only a few days ago, and he may come soon; if he does I will write you what he says. I have a copy of what I inclose. Davidson is a relative and was always a warm supporter of Vance.
Yours Truly

Rev. Geo. Summey

April 19, 1897

Clarksville, Tenn.

Dear Sir;

Your favor read. Will you kindly write me the date and amount of the [?] or on the note and oblige,

Yours Truly,

W. B. Gwyn

J. S. McLeubbins Jr. Esq.

Salisbury, N. C.

April 20, 1897

Dear sir;

Some six or seven years ago. Mr. W. W. West and myself bought at H. McNeely a lot in your city, paying $100.00 and I think I wrote you once about the taxes, and perhaps [?] but the matter was crowded out of my mind and I lost sight of it. I think you were an officer of the land Company, the Dixie Lands [?], at the time, and no doubt you have a record of the matters. Will you please invite me anything you may know about [?] as appears of taxes, and what we could get cash for the lot, would very much oblige.
Yours Truly,

W. B. Gwyn

J. A. Bolich Esq.
102 Park Ave.
April 20, 1897
City
Dear Sir;

I have seen Mr. Summey, and the price of the lot for the present is $250.00. Mr. Summey says that it is useless to talk of less, but that if the price is changed any time soon, it will be raised- not lowered.

Hoping you will take it, I remain,
Yours Truly

T. B. Lenoir Esq.

April 20, 1897

Yadkin Valley, N.C.

Dear Cousin;

Your favor received saying you have been summoned to Bakersville by Tate & Cochran, which I suppose is just another way of saying that they have brought suit against you, as administrator of the estate of our late uncle W. W. Lenoir, for the possession of lands they are claiming.

I do not know positively, but I should think it is most likely that you know the difference between a summons and a subpoena, the latter being a peremptory command to appear and give evidence in a trial, a command which it is not so very safe to disobey---and the former being merely a legal notice that unless you appear and answer the complain to be filed by the plaintiff the latter will demand of the court the relief asked for in his complaint.
You ask what you shall do. I have been to see the Messrs. Davidson & Jones, the Asheville counsel of Tate (I think they said it was the Tate “branch of the concern they represent) and they knew nothing of the suit except that, as Davidson said, he had suggested that some suits be brought against parties in possession in order to save his clients against the running of the statute of limitations, but that it was not the intention of plaintiffs as to the suits referred to, to press the trial of them until the suit against the Linville Co. is decided, which he thought will be next fall. So far as he had anything to do with the suit brought against you, he said he would not take me by surprise by asking for a judgment for want of answer. But he said I had best not rely on that, as he was not sure the suit was one of the ones brought at his suggestion for the purpose named above.

Mr. Lee Smith-

April 21, 1897

Battery Park Hotel, City.

Dear Sir;

I see your name mentioned in newspaper reports of a proposed enterprise here in the way of building and operating a suburban railway. It might interest you to learn something about the unfinished road to top of Sunset Mountain, by all odds the most accessible and eligible terminus for such an enterprise.

This property can be had at a bargain by persons engaging to complete the laying of the track and operating it. There are -1-7/8 miles of track to lay, grading about completed- 2-1/2 miles track laid. Would be pleased to have you call and see me.

April 21, 1897

Geo. W. Pack Esq.,

Hotel Netherland, New York.

My Dear Sir;

I receive this morning your favors of the 19^th, the one giving Rumbough permission to cut sod, and the other empowering me to use discretion in the persecution of the Collier boys. I’ll C.
Mr. Chas H. Campbell has built a fire stone wall on nearly all of his Montford Avenue front, and on all his Panola St. front, and is building a good size story-and-a-half house on the east portion. He built last year  good two story house on the west end. He has conveyed a part of the small lot, corner Panola and the side street, to his daughter, Mrs. Lea, and she or he is now building a house there.
Mr. Craig says he will not buy the lot, No. 18, Block IX, at present. The weather here now is all that could be desired. I hope it is equally fine in New York. I heard some Chicago people say it was very bad at home.

Geo. W. Pack Esq.,

April 23, 1897

New York.

My Dear Sir;

Your favor received re-inclosing Maschker’s letter. I went yesterday to Sunset Mountain, on horseback, and rambled over a good part of it. I saw no signs of serious damage by trespassers. Henry Scarborough in clearing up some land for corn on the 30 acre Patton tract which includes most of the top of Sunset Mt., has cut down the old field trees on the fence row which formed the line between yours and Patton’s land, a thing he had no right to do, and for which I scolded him. He owes some ten dollars on last year’s rent corn, which he is not in a fair way to pay very soon. I hunted the ground pretty thoroughly about the Collier premises. They have no doubt got the most of their fire wood off your land, but left little sign besides old stumps trimmed up, or rather hacked up. A few bushes here and there are cut, but apparently in idle mischief, as they remain where they were cut. The tracks of the wheel-barrow are there in the paths northward of house. I think what they got consisted principally of stumps and old logs though they may have carried on more serious operations at points concealed from the road, as I only got off my horse once.
It seem to me that it would pay to conduct extensive forestry operations on both sides of the mountain, as there are many thousand cords of wood that would benefit the land by leaving it.
As the weather is still fine, only more so, there is nothing new.

Chas. L. Pack Esq.,

April 23, 1897

Cleveland, O.

My Dear Sir;

Your favor of the 14^th was duly received. Mr. Barnard has made no offer as yet. I do not insist on the idea of subdividing the lot, or rather the block. Barnard said he would like to know if you would sell lots, but, as I said on a former occasion, it is not easy to tell what Barnard really does not want, and if I was not so poor a man he is one individual that I would not trouble myself for, on that very account, as one is so apt to have his trouble for nothing. Therefore, I do not atall blame you for not changing your plan about the property to please for nothing.

I notice you say you will want 7% on deferred payments. I think from that, that you are not aware of the changes in N.C. interest laws made by legislature of 1895, which cut down the allowable legal rate of six per cent. Unless I hear from you to the contrary I shall consider myself authorized to contract for sale of the property at $4,000, ¼ cash, and the balance in 1, 2, and 3 years with interest-6% per annum payable semiannually.

We are having fine weather now, after a very disagreeable season lasting several weeks.

Yours Very Truly

W. A. White Esq.,

April 26, 1897

130 Water Street, New York.

Dear Sir;

I hold for collection certificate No. 49, for $500.00, issued by Lewis Maddux, Receiver of the Asheville Street Railway, dated October 28, 1893, under order of the Court dated May 5^th, 1893, in the case of the Thompson Houston Electric Co., et als vs. the said St. Railway Co., in the U.S. Court for W. Dist. Of N.C.

I wrote you about this certificate about this time of the year 1895, and I find a letter from you in regard to it, dated May 22^nd 1895, which you can doubtless find on your copy book, and in which you admit that the cert. is lien superior to the bonds on the road, and that it is good, and that there was no use of my client’s going to law about it.

Well, that last would seem to be a very clear proposition, especially in the light of facts of record but recently discovered by me and no doubt once familiar to you. I find the road was sold to you new company after a decree had in a different case from the above, to wit, the Atlantic Trust Co., Vs the A. S. Railway Co., and that both in the decree of sale, the decree confirming the sale (to which latter decree your new Co. is a party), and also in the deed itself, it is expressly provided that your new Co. takes the property subject to the lien of the Receiver’s certs., and actually covenants to pay them, and also that the decree confirming the sale and ordering

The deed made to your new Co., has the following provision:

“and this Court reserves the right to resell summarily the said property and premises or any part thereof if such payment shall not be made within thirty days of the further order of the Court to that effect.”
The above clause refers to preceding clause providing for assumption by your new Co., the purchaser, of all prior and unpaid liens and it is evident that my client has a speedy and simple remedy, but what is the use of his having to resort to the court in such a small matter where the obligation is so plainly inevitable? There will be necessarily, some costs, which will fall, eventually, on your Company, and you can save yourselves some expense by taking up the certificate. Mr. Smith, my client, declines to wait any longer, and I must proceed without further delay unless you take up the claim. The interest has been running 3-1/2 years (on 28^th Inst.), at 7% per annum, which makes $122.50, making a total of $622.50.

April 26, 1897

Maj. T. H. Bomar-

C/o Maj. J. W. Wilson,

Morganton, N.C.

Dear Sir;

I have an inquiry as to your lot, No. 54, Prospect Park, you bought of T. C. McNeely in 1890. It seems you bought two lots, Nos. 53 and 54, in one deed, the consideration being $1,582.00, and that afterwards, December 1890, you sold lot 53 to Geo. A. Lichtenberger for $650.00, and it appears that you have never conveyed the other lot, No. 54, to any one. Of course property has taken a great tumble since 1890, but I cannot tell just what your lot would bring now. Please write me what you will take for it, paying me five per cent out of the purchase money. I am not the agent or attorney of the party making the inquiry, as he only asked me because I am in the real estate business, and used to own that property, &c.

April 26, 1897
Samuel Lichtenberger, Esq.,

York, Pa.

Dear Sir;

It appears that you own lot No. 53 in “Prospect Park” in the western part of the city. What are you asking for it now? Perhaps I could sell it for you at a fair price. My charges for selling are five per cent commission.

Geo. W. Pack Esq.,

April 26, 1897

New York.

My Dear Sir;

Your favor inclosing the Loder deed and the Merrimon power of attorney was received this morning.

Dr. M.C.Millender bought of us lot No. 12, Block IX, south of Craig’s, East side of Montford Ave. later he bought W. W. West’s lot, no. 10, of the same block, next to the Park. This letter he is proposing to improve. He paid West nine hundred dollars for it , and says he has spent some three hundred dollars on it and that it has cost him about $1,200 to date. He has some money, and has his plans made for a house, to cost $2,500, and he will spend some two hundred dollars more on stable &c., so that his property when complete will cost him over $3,500. He wants to borrow two thousand dollars for four years, that is, eh wants to pay it in four equal annual installments of five hundred dollars each, and will mortgage the two lots, giving a second lien on the unimproved lot, as he owes you now on it $325, having paid $275. It might be better to take up the old mort. and give a new one for $2,325. He wants to sell the unimproved lot and get it released, and would want to pay as a consideration six hundred dollars, provided he gives a blanket mort on the two lots for the two combined debts, as suggested. In case the debts remain separate, he would expect to go on paying the first debt as it comes due, and on sale and release he would expect to pay $275 in addition to whatever he may lack at the same time of paying up the old debt. The above is fully as clear as mud, and maybe more so. It stands. He asked me how I stood with you, and I told him that, as far as I knowed, we was tolerable frenly.
C-riously, I believe Millender can and will pay out if you let him get in. He says he has life insurance that will help if he dies. Maj. Bingham banks on him. Kindly R.S.P.Q.

Mrs. Pleasants,

April 27, 1897

French Broad Avenue, City.

Dear Madam;

When you spoke to me the other day about repairs to fences of Mr. Pack’s property adjoining you, I was confident you referred to the fence between Mr. Pack and Mr. Cocke, as you spoke of the latter’s stock getting in to your garden through Mr. Packs’ property. It was with this understanding that I indicated to you that it would be fixed. I went down there today and found that all the long line of fence, some 475 feet between Mr. Pack and Mr. Cocke is gone except some two or three parts-of-panels, and Mr. Rector, the tenant, tells me he stakes his cows, and does not undertake to let them run loose. I think now you must have referred to the fence between Mr. Pack’s property and your own, the fence around your own garden. As neither Mr. Pack nor his tenant uses his grounds for stock, I cannot, in the absence of Mr. Pack, go to any expense for him in the fence matter, as it would do him no good, nor protect his property in any way that I can see. Nothing but a very heavy expenditure would be of any value to Mr. Pack, and I would not go to that without authority from him.
With high regard,

Yours Very Respectfully

Geo. W. Pack Esq.

April 28, 1897

New York.

My Dear Sir;

Pinewald is getting to be so over-run by the public that it would seem to be time to take such decisive measures, as will cut short off all the public use of that fine property, either as a pass way from Depot Street and the cabins near the property, or as a picnic ground on Sundays. I find there are a number of new paths made and the entire fence on the south side gone, even the posts being town up and carried off. Much of the west side fence is also gone, the planks torn off and the wires broken down, see “exhibits” A and B. I have fished up an estimate I once made at your request, for a high board fence around part of the property. I find that I estimated for only 1,630 feet, and I think the fence proposed was to be built on the back side, that part of South side adjoining Cocke, and the west half of the North side. That would about make it. I find that the estimate, allowing what now seems to me too little for the fence posts, amounted to $269.25. It would have been a good high fence, and possibly comparatively safe from destruction when the property is occupied, but it was not sufficient in extent, as it ought to have come all the way to French Broad Avenue on the Northside, and even then the entire front and Mrs. Pleasant’s property would have afforded an entrance for Sunday and other trespassers. It was probably a few of these considerations that deter-

-red you from going to the expense.

I have no something to propose which may strike you more favorably from several points of view. The North line, 660, the west line, 825, that part of South line adjoining Cocke, 425, making a little over 1,900 feet, but say 2,000 for convenience of calculation, would require 200 posts 10 feet apart and from some inquiry made, both as to posts and wire, labor & c., I think the following estimate is pretty reliable:

200 locust posts, 10 feet long, 5 in X 5 in, sawed…$50.00
Cost of digging holes and setting, 3 feet deep, at 10 cents…$20.00

20,000 feet barbed wire, (10 strands), at $2.65 per 100lb-39.75
Staples for fastening wire---1.50
Labor, allowing 2 men at $1.00 per day ea., 8 days,---16.00-$127

This is jus.0635 per running foot. If we put the posts six feet apart instead of ten, add $46.65 for posts and setting, and say $3.35 for additional labor and staples—and if we put more strands of wire, add $5.75 per strand, or say $6.00 per strand, and add 4 more strands, say $23.00, we have $200.00, or 10 cents per running foot for a much stronger fence.
Now then if we add to the above a continuation of the fence around Mrs. Pleasant’s garden, (the cheaper construction, say 7 cents per foot, 500 feet, will be $35.00 additional, and if we build on the front a ribbon wire fence, with close posts (6 feet), 545 feet, say at 10 cents per foot, say $55.00- will add $90.00 and a gate $10 would make an even $100- and this would be a total expenditure of $300.00, and ought to protect the property well.

I feel pretty sure that by reinforcing the construction at exposed points, with or without the sacrifice of un-needed strength at other places, this fence will turn the public.

I delivered the P. of A. to Merrimon, and he handed it back to me for registration. I suppose there is no hurry about registering it until it is needed, and in that belief I will hold it until I hear from you upon the point as to whether I had not better prepare and send you another P. of A. providing for a date of expiration, as we had it in the other case. I intended to leave a blank for this in draughting the other, but I forgot it in writing the document. Reginald Loder promises to settle tomorrow. Hope you are better.

[Map of French Broad Avenue]

[Prices of Geo. W. Pack’s property]

Geo. W. Pack Esq.,

April 29, 1897

New York

My Dear Sir;

I herewith inclose [sic] the price list asked for in your recent letter, read yesterday, and re-inclose with it the land list sent by you as a guide for me in making out the price list. I also inclose two copies of the price list, one for you to keep, and one to be sent back to me, S. V. P., and you will observe that in all three there are three blanks to be filled, the prices of lots No. 3, 6, and 7 of the Chestnut and Broad St. block. These particular lots you have never priced separately to me, but only in combination with the corner lots adjoining them. I inclose a little sketch map showing the way you formerly priced them, in case you have not at hand a memorandum of it.
Please note that lots Nos. 15, 165, and 17. and Nos. 18 and19, all of Block X, I am not offering at present, owing to complications arising, as to the first named three, from a right of way granted to R. Pearson by Mrs. Patton before she conveyed to you, and as to the last named two lots, from the alley way of which we talked last Spring.
Mr. T. S. Morrison has stirred up quite a row with Brown and his sister, who bought lots 13 and 14, and they have been after me divers and sundry times to know what you were going to do about it. It is such a long story that I have been putting it off until you should return and rest up for the hearing, but as it is mostly record matter, and I have notes of the records, I can, at any time, write it out and forward it. What say? How are you getting? And how is Mrs. Pack these times, and the others? Kindly give them my regards and accept my best wishes for your health and happiness.

[Book 390 p. 299; map of Patton Avenue- Phillip Street]

J. McD. Michael Esq.,

April 30, 1897

Springdale, N.C.

Dear Sir;

Nephew James tells me you are at the old Lenoir place for a season, and I thought I would write to you to know if you are offering for sale any of the timber now. I think I know of a party who might consider the purchase of a fine body of timber land, or more likely the stumpage of such a tract. I am very little informed as to the quality or quantity of the timber on that place, but I have understood in a general way that there is some fine timber. James was not certain whether any of it has been sold or not.
I would be obliged if you would write me briefly in regard to the matter, and whether, if the timber is for sale, you are willing to pay a commission for selling it &c. The party I refer to is at present in Asheville, and might possibly go out while you are there. With kind regards, Yours Very Truly

Rev. Geo Summey

May 3, 1897

Clarksville, Tenn.

Dear Sir;

Your favor rcd, giving date and amount of credit is $500.00 on Sept. 12/96- There would then be due on that date 2 2/5 mos. int. on $1,000 at 8% = $16.00, and on Jan’y 1^st 3 3/5 mos int. on $500.00 8%= $12.00= $28.00. I rec’d your January 1^st, I cannot pay it now, am repeatedly disappointed, been dull times, and am in a dead strain just now about my taxes. I will do the best I can, and send it when I can.

Yours Very Truly,

W. B. Gwyn

[Geo. W. Pack in A/c with W. B. Gwyn]

Geo. W. Pack Esq.,

April 30, 1897

New York.

My Dear Sir;

I received Dr. Millender’s grand bounce by this morning’s mail. I herewith inclose my account for April, also Reginald Loder’s note for $265.00 dated April 24^th. He came in late this P.M. after I had closed and written up my books for the month, hence the small sum of $2.65 interest he paid on the old account up to April 24^th does not appear in the said statement. Neither does it appear in the statement that I have paid you anything on account though pretty much all I made this month was charged to you and paid by Loder- My total commissions (net) were $63.14 besides the $240 on the Young matter, all of which went on the interest on the house debt. I paid out $63.60 taxes (city) on wife’s property- and ten dollars insurance and then several small sums that seemed as if they just had to be paid to keep the pace. Weaver had to have December rent he said and I cannot afford to move. I sued to think the old saying about all lanes having a turn in them was true, but it does seem that some lanes are as long as life.

I took the liberty of selling one McEntire, a little carpenter who used to work for Tennent, and who is quite positive that you know him as well as he does you, fifteen bushel-no, bushels of your corn on a credit of 5 mos. taking a chattel mortgage on Pan and Hester, his mare and cow respectfully, which he gives $12.00 for the mar and the cow air1/2  Jersey. The debt is $7.50 I mean. The fellow was so cheerful about the matter I could not resist letting him have the corn, which I admire a man that can smile when he says he is hungry.

Capt. T. L. Clayton
May 1, 1897

Dear Captain;

Please send me that map. I had a customer for some of the land near the mill (Patterson’s) today, but could not give my satisfaction because you did not return the map the other day. I told customer I would write you for map and see him next week.

Yours Truly,

W. B. Gwyn

May 1, 1897

Dear Charlie;

Be sure to come and see me when you come to town again. I want to see you about those [?] posts. I now think I shall want about 300 posts, sawed, 10 feet long and 5”X5” square- these are uncommon posts, but I want to build an uncommonly good fence. I suppose round posts might do if we cannot get the sawed ones, but I want sawed posts if I can get them and they do not cost too much. I will be much obliged if you will make inquiry and let me know.
Yours Truly,

W. B. Gwyn

May 8, 1891

Angus M. Smith Esq.,

737 Talleyrand Ave

Jacksonville, Fla.

Dear Sir;

Your favor of yesterday [?]. I think I can write you something more definite in about a month from now. I am in recent communication with New York parties in regard to the certificate, and have hopes of making a trade. If this fails, I think I will commence suit in June. Real Estate is very quiet. One friend J. Hardy Lee is keeping books for a wholesale home here, and his looking well.

With Kind Regards,

Yours Truly

Geo. W. Pack Esq.,

May 4, 1897

New York.

My Dear Sir;

Inclosed please find the P. of A., duly registered. When I received it from you in the mail, with the request to have it registered and return it to you in New York, I thought you meant for me to deliver it to Merrimon first, as that is the custom. After delivery and registration, the custody of the deed is a comparatively indifferent matter, and I supposed you wanted it back for purposes or reference. I waited a few days for Merrimon to return to town, and when he did I delivered it as I wrote you. I think it was the same day or the day after, that I received your request for a price list “for me to deliver M. with the P. of A.” When I read that I saw it had been your intention all along to deliver it after registration. I did not intend to go against your instructions.

I am much obliged for your accession to my proposed plan of protecting Pinewald. I will carry out my part of the programme to the best of my ability. Your remarks concerning the past tutelage of the place are pointed and have much foundation, but it is a fact that repeated protests have been unavailing, and trespass notices nugatory in effect, as long as the place lay, as it does and will, in the natural path of near cutters from the depot and regions round about, and there was no physical obstacle in the way of their progress through the premises, and so long as then place offered such charming inducements to Sunday strollers, and the front fence was down.

In regard to the Morrison matter, I note that you think it will keep, and the excitement may die out. Let me say that a part of the trouble is that the Browns claim you have sold them a strip of land off the front that you did not own, and they will keep back the purchase money till the matter is settled. It seems to me that a way to settle it would be for them to quitclaim the strip to you, and then you quitclaim it back to them, in order to discharge your warranty and protect you against future claim by their grantees if they should sell. I suppose this would be satisfactory to them if you can agree as to what amount they ought to allowed on settlement. If this changes your wishes as to my sending you a brief of the case, please write me to that effect.

I am sorry to learn from Mrs. Pack that you are not intending to return to Asheville until fall, but I am not sorry that you are going to do what your physician decides is best for your health, and that you are going for the summer where you are most likely to keep the same. If I should write you a few long letters like this, do not take it as an act of spite.

Mrs. Pack was as nice as possible to me, and I was mighty glad to see her looking so well. The weather has been exceeding tough.
With kind regards and best wishes, I remain.

Messrs. J. K. Gilliat & Co.

May 4^th, 1897

London

Gentlemen;

I inclose herewith statement commencing with August 1896, and ending with April 1897. The house remained vacant several months last fall, and at last I had to let it go at $20.00 per mo. Instead of $25.00, but the tenant pays the water next. He is beginning to demand a reduction of rent, but he will not get it, as he may leave if he desires and will take the chances on getting a little more some one. The house is beginning to need more money spent on it. The old factory is very rapidly depreciating, and I have been unable to get any offer for the building. Your friend Clark did say he would give $50.00 for it for kindling wood, but I did not consider such a sum, not press to find out if he was serious. It seems to be quite impossible to keep people out of the building. You will observe by the statement that I look up the insurance last October, and that in February I sold the old boiler- it was the best of two or three offers I had. Mr. Clark one day sent and tore out all the pipes- he afterwards said to me that he had bought them, I think from Young Mr. Gilliat at $25.00. Mr. Clark says he also took, at request of Mr. Gilliat, the desk in the office, which he would try to sell.

J.K. G. 2

I inclose tracing of a map of the vicinity. [?] 1890, our boom year, some lots (two) cut out of lots no 12 and 13 on the map, sold at $33.33 per front foot, they being laid off 200 feet deep. One of them has been improved, but the other (13 @ 75 X 200) is still vacant and the owner would be glad to get his money back.
These lots lie in a better locality than the fading lots, and are worth considerably more per front foot, equally deep. There are some inferior buildings across Phillip Street and a really vicious neighborhood in stones throw, which seriously affect its value. With the factory off, the Grove Street front might be called a bargain at $20.00 per front foot, but it is by no means certain that it would find a ready taker. As for the dwelling, it seems to be very hard to get any offer for it. I advised a customer to offer $2,500 but in vain. I have never known a time when carpenter’s wages were so low as now, notwithstanding building is active [?], especially the suburbs, made accessible by electric cars, to the inquiry of values of property in the city. I would earnestly advise a very considerable reduction in prices of both lots, and I would be glad if you would kindly write me your lowest prices for 1897, and I will do as much better as possible. It is evident that the factory adds practically nothing to the value in market.

Yours Truly,

W. B. Gwyn

Mrs. Pleasants

May 5, 1897

French Broad Ave

My Dear Madam;

I am trying to get Mr. Pack to build a [?] close and high (7 feet) wire fence around Pinewald, but he very justly thinks that adjoining land owners should you in the expense, and objects to a large expenditure for the benefit of a number besides himself. I think your liens join for a distance of some 500 feet, and I write to ask if you are willing to share the expenses of such a fence, provided it does not cost you, individuall, over five cents a running foot, which would be $25. An exact account will be kept, and the fence, if built, will be an uncommonly good one. Kindly answer so that I may decide on it and oblige.
Yours Truly,

W. B. Gwyn

Hon. W. J. Cocke

May 5, 1897

City

Dear Sir;

I think I can induce Mr. Pack to build a high and strong wire fence around his Pinewald property provided adjourning property owners will aid in it. I notice the line fence between you and him is just about gone. I think that line is some 425 feet long, and I write to ask if you will pay half the cost of that part, not to exceed 10 cents per running foot, your half being 5 cents $21.25. I will keep a strict account if the fence is built, and if cashless you will get the benefit of it. If more, it will not fall on you. Kindly answer soon, and oblige, Yours Very Truly,

W. B. Gwyn

Mr. J. E. McCubbins
May 5, 1897

Salisbury, N.C.

Dear Sir;

I wrote to you on the 19^th Ult requesting information about a small lot Mr. W. W. West and myself purchased form the Dixie Land Company for $100, in the year 1890.
If you cannot give me the information asked for in said letter, will you kindly refer me to some one in your town who can, and very much oblige.

Yours Truly,

 W. B. Gwyn

J. A. Jarvis Esq.

May 5, 1897

Seney St.,

City.

Dear Sir,

You told me some weeks ago that you were going to sell the potatoes the next day. Please drop in and report about this and other matters.

Yours Truly

Wm. Griggs Esq.

May 5, 1897

City.

Dear Sir;

You are behind on your rent, $1.50 on last month, and $4 for this month. Please call and settle.
Yours Truly

Lafayette Creasman Esq.,

May 7, 1897

Shope, N.C.

Dear Sir;

Please call and see me when you are in town again, as I want to see you about the please of Walter Bingham which you have in charge. I have received a letter from present owners in regard to the place and they gave me your address.

Yours Truly

Preston L. Gray Esq.

May 7, 1897

Bristol, Va.

Dear Sir;

Yours received, and in reply will say that my charges for selling real estate are five per cent commissions. I will write to Creasman to come in see me and tell me something about the place.

Yours Truly

J. W. Rives Esq.

May 8, 1897

617, Second St. N.E.

Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir;

At request of your father I inclose a deed from you and your wife to Mr. Geo. W. Pack to be acknowledged by you before a notary Public. Please have him be sure to put on his official seal, fill [?]  balance.

Yours Truly,

May 7, 1897

Dear Willie;

Your postal card of the 5^th was received yesterday morning and I was in hopes I would get some more news today, but I did not. I do hope mother is better by today. I hope some of you will send me at least a card every day or so for a while. I think by your not writing yesterday morning she must be better.

In regard to the matter of Mrs. Fred Foard[?] factory stock, I am still of the opinion that Tom Gwyn’s purchase of it was irregular and at least voidable if not void, and while that [?] advice may be good, I don’t think either Foard or his wife would be bound by the orders of the Court unless they are made parties to the proposed friendly suit the above law firm advises to be brought by Tom Gwyn against the Co. to Campbell transfer of the streak[?]. The very fact that Mrs. Foard assigned some of the shares and did not assign the others is a circumstance quite sufficient to put you and Lillard on imaginary, and leaves the door open for Foard to claim that only the shares signed over were pledged to secure the loan, and that the other shares were to be held on other trusts- or, in fact, whatever other stab[?] of facts is, or is alleged to be, the truth. What you say about the law market value of the stock is in Tom Gwyn’s favor, but it may have been different at that time. [?] the laws since the stock is setting at. I notice you say Charlie Gwyn sold his last year at 38 cents. Don’t you think you had better sell out too, to some of them? I merely throw out the suggestion for what it may be worth. Maybe you could pay some debts with some of the stock. Maybe Dr. Barker would take the some. From what you tell me, it seems probably that from this on the indebtedness will increase, and soon the old traps will not be worth the debt. It has simply provided certain of the Elkin Gwyns a comfortable living, as managers &e., all these years, at the expense of the stock holder.

W. B. Gwyn

W. R. Whiteside Esq.

May 8, 1897

Vance, N.C.

Dear Sir;

Your brother, Mr. J. B. Whiteside, tells me you have a saw mill, and that you live in a section where there is a good deal of locust timber. I want about three hundred locust posts, ten feet long, sawed five inches square, strict measures. Your brother thinks four inches by five will be as good as five squares, and that they will come a good deal cheaper. You can let me know right off what you can afford to furnish the posts at, and how much difference it will make to reduce them one inch one way, as above stated, and how soon you can deliver them. While you are about it, you might estimate on posts 4 X 4, for it may be that posts of that size will answer but they must be ten feet long, and strict measure every way.

Yours Truly

May 10, 1897

M. S. Farmer Esq.

Flat Rock, N.C.

Dear Sir;

I have seen that party- his capitalist friend does not loan, only buys, where he sees a bargain. I have written a New York party. Frankly, I do not expect a favorable reply. But I will try again and be on the lookout- for any opportunity- if you succeed in other quarters let me know.

Yours Truly,

W. B. Gwyn

PS. I inclose a letter from Mr. Henry C. Bason, a gentlemen of free color, who resides on lot No. 2, X river. He came this morning and paid $12.00 of the $18.00 he owed. He represents that, since he came with Maj. Bingham to Asheville he has paid up about $175.00, incurred largely for doctor bills for his family, and says it has kept his nose to the grindstone (notwithstanding it was flat enough already- W.B.G.) and submits that if you will forgive him the $1.00 he still owes on February, and the $2.50 due March, he will catch up and stay up.

Geo. W. Pack Esq.

May 10, 1897

Carter Netherland, N. Y.

My Dear Sir;

Your kind favor of 6^th, and your later letter in regards to the Vance Monument, were duly received, for which accept my thanks. I will make a third attempt to get a meeting of the committee, and will lay your letter before them.
Our friend C. H. Campbell has decided a part of let No. 5, Blk IV, to his daughter Mrs. Lea, and a good house is being built on it. Mrs. Campbell says he received this morning from Mr. Lea a check for $1,000 towards paying for the house which, he says, will cost not less than $1,500. He says they want $600.00 to complete the house, and will give a first mortgage &c., on a trine loan, say three years. And Campbell says he will guarantee to the prompt payment of the interest. I told him I hated to bother you too much for nothing, but “being as it was him” I would mention it. I declined positively and reiteratively on Saturday last to submit to you a proposition for a 3 to 5 years loan of $10,000 on a magnificent piece of real estate assessed for taxation at $12,000.00 and held at over $30,000.00. The margin will be so great in the propose six hundred dollar loan that we can hide behind it when pursued for assistance by other purchasers. Mr. Campbell says he would rather get them money from you than anybody else, and asked me to say so. Don’t let that fool you too much[?]. Mr. G knows any other broker will charge him more than I agreed- Mr. G is a powerful close man on fees; maybe that’s the reason he has money to pay his taxes and other bills.

With kind regards to Mrs. McNairy and Mrs. Rollins, and hoping to hear from you soon,
I remain Yours Very Truly,

W. B. Gwyn