554 HELMS v. FRANCISCUS.

the 1st of January, 1828, applied for leave to put in his answer,
stating his reasons for not having done so sooner, which prayer
being refused, he filed another petition, and various other proceed-
ings were had in relation thereto; when on the 25th of March,
1830, by a writing signed by the solicitor of the plaintiffs and of
the defendant Helms, it was agreed that the testimony taken in re-
lation to the petition should apply also to the answer tendered by
him to the supplemental bill, if received; and that if that answer
was received the case should stand for hearing; and a general re-
plication be filed to that answer also. On the next day the plain-
tiffs' solicitor endorsed the proffered answer of Helms as follows :
*the complainants allow the within answer to be admitted into
this cause, and the register is requested to enter, in behalf of the
complainants, the general replication to it.'

The answer of Lewis Helms, thus introduced, admitted the facts
and circumstances of the will, the partnership, and other matters
charged in the bill as against the defendants Franciscus and Sadtler,
and then stated that he found the plaintiff Anna residing in Cham-
bersburg, Pennsylvania, keeping a small store, and reputed to be a
widow, having an only son, Frederick A. Wandelohr, and as such he
married her on the 12th of October, 1819; but he was deceived;
for soon after his marriage he ascertained that she never had been
married, and that she had also concealed from him the fact of her
being then herself largely indebted; that within a few months after
their marriage his wife solicited him to become surety for the pay-
ment of certain debts due from her son, and also from others to a
large amount, which he refused; soon after which, she disposed
of the most of their moveables, and went to Baltimore; and on the
7th of February, 1820, having caused him to be invited to an in-
terview at the house of John H. Rathean, where she and her con-
federates locked him in a room with them, and by great threats of
personal violence, insisted on his releasing all rights to any pro-
perty to which she was, or might be in any way, entitled, and to
leave the country; but he refused, and made his escape unhurt.
That his wife Anna, having got possession of his family papers,
and clothes, refused to deliver them to him; that she defamed and
slandered him much, by which his character suffered greatly in
Baltimore. That a certain Jaco6 Merkle, who held his promissory
note for the sum of $61 28, at the instigation of the plaintiff
Anna, sued him for payment, and he being unable to pay, was, at
the suit of Merkle, on the 6th of June, 1820, imprisoned in the