The Dawson news. (Dawson, Ga.) 1889-current, 1924-12-30
NOTED GEORGIA CASE
IS IN COURT 80 YEARS
MEN MAY COME AND MEN
MAY GO, BUT THIS SUIT BIDS
FAIR TO GO ON FOREVER.
l6 OF LITIGANTS HAVE DIED
Will Come Up Again at Next Term
Of Dodge Superior Court. The
Property at Issue Is Tract of Land
Left to Widow While Single.

Property at Issue Is Tract of Land
Left to Widow While Single.
EASTMAN, Ga.-For more than
half the average span of human life
lawyers at intervals have carried into
the courts of the state case which
has never yet been settled, and which
at the present term of the Dodge
county court, will be placed before a
jury again-this time, perhaps, to set
tie the fight of 81 years standing.
Livingston VS.. Peacock.
This is the name of the case now,
but the years and the hand of death
have swept the field almost clear of
those who instituted the proceedings,
and names have changed and people
have passed on and been forgotten
and still the legal processes OF the
land inexorably grind away in their
effort to clear up a matter which has
cost heavily in time and men and
money.
Sixteen Are Dead.
Many have stood before the courts
and pleaded for and against the mer-
its of both sides. Sixteen Of these
lawyers and judges are dead.
In 1905 before Judge J. H. Martin,
Judge John l. Hall and DIN Wimber-
ly argued the case for the plaintiff.
Both are dead. ]. E. Wooten, attor-
ney for the defendant at the time,
now is dead and his son, w. A. Woo
ten, has taken his place in the legal
battle and will be among the counsel
when the case comes to trial. Judge
E. d. Graham and Judge Dave Rob-
erts, prominently connected with the
case in its early stages, also are dead.
On or about September rs, 1875,
| Alfred Mullis, of Dodge county, died
intestate and his property, including
the tract of land over which the years
of litigation have followed, went into
the possession of his wife, as long as
she remained widow. When she
married George Boutwell,, shortly
thereafter, the property went to the
children of the petitioner and the heirs
at law of the testator. Lovett Brown
was administrator of the Mullis estate.
Charged Illegal Sale.
The plaintiffs state their case in
words to this effect Lovett Brown,
administrator for the Mullis estate,
entered into an agreement with H. ].
Sapp, whereby Sapp was to be the
only bidder for this particular piece
OF property when the administrator
placed it for sale. This agreement was
carried out, according to the allega-
tions of the plaintiff, and Sapp pur-
chased the land for the insignificant
sum of about SIS when the property
was well worth $1,000. The plaintiffs
further allege that Brown, the admin
istrator, after making sure that Sapp
purchased the property, i'll turn
bought the land from Sapp, and in an
old interrogatory taken in the case
during its trial in 1893 Brown admit
ed that he paid Sapp a profit of five
dollars" on the transaction. The plain
tiffs allege that the sale by the admin
Iistrator to Sapp was not legally exc
cuted, and they desire cancellation
Of the contracts and the restoration
of all rents and other income from
the property during the years it has
been in a state of litigation. Auditors
reports have been made out repeated
Nv, and the case has gone from court
to court, from judge to Judge, with
lawyers falling by the wayside and
being replaced, until it has reached its
present stage.
Kept Alive.
Many events have conspired to keep
the case alive In 1917, when the name
of the case was Livingston VS.. Wynne,
after a decision had been reached, the
plaintiffs revealed to the court on an
appeal that one of the jurors had been
so indiscreet as to have supper with
a brother of one OF the defendants and
a mistrial was granted.
H. A. Peacock, a son-inlaw OF
Lovett Brown, was given a portion OF
the land and Nancy Peacock, daugh-
ter of Brown, was given some OF 1t
bv her father, as he claimed in the
1898 interrogatory quoted above, be-
cause of his natural love and objection.
This is the reason for the change in
the name of the case from Boutwell,
VS.. Brown, to Livingston vs.. Wynne,
to Livingston VS.. Peacock. Living
ston. referred to in the name of the
case, is an administrator for the other
estate.
Hall. Grice and Bloch, of Macon,
are interested in the case, it having
come down to the firm as a sort of
inheritance, from the days when elder
members of the firm, now dead, were
attorneys for the plaintiffs.
Whether il will be settled now or
not. OF course. is an unknown matter.
1t has fingered for long time to die
a sudden death, and it may be that
new angles have been developed and
new methods devised to put differ
ent face on the matter. The case has
lived a long and adventurous life and
the courts undoubtedly would be glad
to see it safely and satisfactorily out
of the way.
THE CALIFORNIA COTTON