The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1897-02-01
A FAIR PROPOSITION REFUSED.
l.. b. NELSON WOULD NOT SELL HIS
STOCK OR TAKE BOND.

He Was offered Full Indemnity by
the Atlanta and West Point Rail-
rOad-NO Agreement Was Made by
Col. LawtOn With Attorney
SpaIding as RepOrted-COI. Law
ten Simply Told Him to Put His
Proposition in Writing Which
Was Not DOne-NOt Believed That
the Court VIII Consent to the De-
structiOn of the Property on the
Application of Five Shares of
stock.
Col. A. r. Lawton, Jr., has returned
from Atlanta, where he has been attend
ing the hearing before Judge j. II. Lump
kin in the superior court of Fulton coun-
ty of the petition asking that the Atlanta
and West Point railroad be placed in the
hands of a receiver. Col. Lawton appear
ed as the representative of the Central of
Georgia Railway Company. which is one
of the large stockholders in the defend
ant corporation, under the bill brought
by L. b. Nelson of Atlanta.
1t was stated in the dispatches to the
Morning News that Col. Lawton, on the
part of the Central, had accepted a prop
osition made by Attorney Spalding, who
appeared for the plaintiff, which might
put an end to the litigation. This, it APP
pears, was an error Mr.. Spalding, it
appears, made a statement in court to
the effect that whenever what he called
the domination of the Atlanta and West
Point railroad by the Central, through
it's own stock and its interest in the Geor-
gia railroad had ceased, arrangements
could be made for the withdrawal of the
suit on very favorable terms.
Upon hearing this statement Col. Law
ton told Mr.. Spalding that any PROPOSE
tions he had to make in regard to the
Central railroad should be put in writing
Mr.. Spalding signified his willingness
to put it IN writing, but it was not DONE
and that was the end of it. Col Lawton
said any statement to the effect that he
had made any agreement in the matter
was in error. and that the foregoing
statement was all that there was to the
matter in court. 1t appears therefore
that there was no proposition considered
looking to the withdrawal or settlement
of the suit.
The answer of the Atlanta and West
Point railroad to the suit brought by Mr..
Nelson was very critical, it may be said,
severely So of Mr.. Nelson's action, it be-
ing charged that he attempted with
five shares of the capital stock to de-
stroy the entire property. There were
others besides the answer of the defend
ant who criticised Mr.. Nelson's action.
He had purchased his stock July 26, 1898,
and was not a stockholdet of record,
therefore, at the time the last annual re-
port of the company was made
Mr. Nelson made several affidavits as
to his reasons for bringing the suit, but it
appeared that he was very particular
not to state that he was not instigated
to do it by some other party or parties.
Among other criticisms of Mr.. Nelson's
action that appeared in the answer of the
Atlanta and West Point Railroad Com
pany was the statement that 'if his in
tcrest in the property had been greater,
his folly would have been less"
The Atlanta and West Point railroad not
only offered in open court to indemnify
him by bond or otherwise against any
loss that might accrue to him, but Of
fcred also to pay him for his stock,
whatever the court might decide 1t was
worth. The Georgia railroad, which IS
the largest stakeholder in the Atlanta and
West FONT railroad also made the same
offer, but it was not accepted.
The question at issue and upon which
the courts decision vii be based largely
is a question of law with regard to the
charter, as there is no dispute with re-
gard TO the facts. The claim was made by
the plaintiff that the roads charter had
expired and that the company should be
wound up by the court. 1t was held that
the new charter was void because the leg
islature had no authority to grant it, that
power vesting in the secretary of state.
This proposition was, of course, contested,
and the claim was also made by one of the
intervenors that the charter of the road
had never-expred as an amendment had
been granted by the legislature in 1869,
which extended the charter thirty years,
and, therefore, it would not expire until
! 1899
1t is not believed that on the application
of the holder of five shares of the stock,
Judge Lumpkin will render a decision
which viii practically wreck a perfectly
solvent and paying corporation The suit
is looked upon by all who have been faml-
lar with the proceedings in connection
with it as a deliberate attempt to wreck
the property, and there are many who do
not think the court will permit it. The we'll
defined impression that the Seaboard
Air Line is al bottom responsible for the
suit still exists, and has since the pro-
ceedings, If anything grown stronger.