Mexico weekly ledger., 1896-10-15
H WINS HIS CASE.
The Celebrated Law Suit Over the G.
W. Baker Land Settled at Last.

The Celebrated Law Suit Over the G.
W. Baker Land Settled at Last.
The case of Barrett VS.. Baker ct al
has at last been decided by the Su-
preme Court In favor of G. w. Nichols,
giving to Mr.. Nichols the $50 acres of
land in dispute.
In about 1882 CIV. Baker owned this
land and procured person to give him
a note secured by a deed of trust on
the land (h;s, Bakers own land) for the
sum of $500. Baker then sold the
note to Barrett, of New York, and
continued to keep the interest on it
paid up until 1892. In 1883 Baker sold
the land to g. w. Nichols and gave
him a warranty deed and satisfied the
deed of trust recorded, saying that the
debt had been paid and had been put
that Land by mistake. When Baker
allowed the interest on the note to de-
fault Mr.. Barrett began to look into
the matter and found Mr.. Nichols in
possession Of the land with q warranty
deed. Baker, In the meantime, had
become insolvent, so each Barrett and
Nichols had to look to the land to save
himself. Mr.. Barrett claimed that his
note should be paid out of the land.
MIR. Nichols claimed that he had paid
Baker for the land without any knowl-
edge Of Barrett's interest and there
fore was entitled to the land. The
debt being as much as the land was
worth 1T become q contest between
Barrett on the one hand and Nichols
the other for the farm. Mr.. Barrett
employed the Hon. T. B. Buckner, of
Kansas City, and w. W. Fry, of this
place, to f~oreclose and have his debt
made a Lien upon the land. Mr.. Nichols
employed George Robertson, of this
place, who contended that under the
circumstances Nichols should hold the
land free of Barrett's debt.
In 1898 the ase was tried before
Judge Hughes, who ordered the land
sold to pay Barrett's note. Mr.. Nichols
appealed to the Supreme Court, where
the case was first tried before Divis-
ion No. 1 of that court. Judge Mac
farlane, who was named in the deed
OF trust as trustee, in the meantime
had become a member OF that court
and was therefore disqualified from
leaving the case to be tried by
three members of the court. On that
trial two judges decided in favor of
Barrett and one for Nichols. The
case was then sent to court in banc
and tried before the whole court, six
sitting. In this, Sgthe second
trial, four judges decided Ii favor of
Barrett and two for Nichols. Then
Nichols attorney filed a motion for
rehearing before the court, which, be-
ing granted, the case was again tried
before that court and the judges this
time were equally divided, three and
three. Then Hon. W. M. Williams, of
Boonville, was agreed upon to sit
with the court and again hear the
case. This hearing took place last
April. The case being carried over to
the present term was to-day finally
decided in favor of Nichols, giving
him the farm. The case involved
many points of law, new and unset
tied, and the several decisions. show
how uncertain the ablest lawyers and
judges may be upon questions that
are brought before them. This case
illustrates the pains, diligence and re-
search given to cases by the judges of
our courts. More than one Judge
changed his opinion and maybe more
than once before finally arriving at .
just conclusion. The case was un-
fortunate for both men-both honest
and innocent-and the question was,
which of two innocent men should
lose. 1t had to be solved by the ap-
plication of legal rules, which was
not an easy task. We congratulate
Mr.. Nichols on his final success, az the
loss of his farm would have been the
loss of every cent he had on earth,
the result Of lifetime toll.