The papers of the U.S. Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands provided a glimpse into events in Liberty County after the Civil War through a case tried in the Freedmen’s Bureau Court between Lazarus John Mallard, a white landowner (and former slaveowner), and a freedman named Morris LeConte. LeConte had charged that Mallard stole a mule from him that he (LeConte) had been given by a U.S. officer; Mallard responded that he had lawfully confiscated the mule from LeConte based on orders from his commander officer, Confederate Army officer Colonel Hood.
The case was heard by the Freedmen’s Bureau agent for Liberty County, Colonel William B. Gaulden. A colorful character and also a Liberty County landowner and former slaveowner, Gaulden had advocated in the 1840s for the resumption of the African slave trade, had opposed secession, had served in the militia during the Civil War, and became an unlikely advocate for Liberty County freedpeople after the Civil War.
This transcription of the case papers include a summary of the case, the evidence heard on both sides, Gaulden’s decision in favor of LeConte, and Mallard’s appeal.
Source citation: Papers of the U.S. Freedmen’s Bureau Assistant Commissioner, 1865-1872, Case of L. John Mallard vs. Morris Leconte regarding a mule, Liberty County, Georgia, 1866; database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9TZ-3S6W-8?i=360&wc=73QQ-XGX%3A1513389602%2C1513400801&cc=2427901 : accessed 5 Jul 2022), Family History Library film 007676444, images 361-380; waypoints “United States, Freedmen’s Bureau, Records of the Assistant Commissioner, 1865-1872” -> Georgia -> “Roll 36, Unbound miscellaneous papers, 1862-1869”; citing multiple NARA microfilm publications; Records of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, 1861 – 1880, RG 105; (Washington D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 1969-1980).
TRANSCRIPTION [by Stacy Ashmore Cole, July 5, 2022)
July 16, 66
Liberty Co. Ga.
Petition of L.J. Mallard to have decision in case of Suit Bet. Mallards vs. LeConte (col’d) set aside.
Evidence
M. LeConte (Col) Pltff [plaintiff] testified was told by Federal Officer about Feb 1st / 65 that he could take any animals he found grazing without halters. Took a mule & took it home, mule was taken at night by W.J. Mallard pursued and found while in his possession. Mule is now in possession of L.J. Mallard, Defendt [defendant]. Pltff had lost a horse taken by Federals. Capt. Tullis Asst Pro. Mar. gave summons for W.J. Mallard who told pltff at Tullis Hd Qrts [headquarters] that the case had been settled. Mule was worth $50.00. other witnesses testified to the same. Defence admitted all except value & some minor points. W.J. Mallard for defence sworn. Was a confed. soldier under Col. Hood. Hood gave orders to seize all animals branded U.S. under this order he took mule in question and reported the capture to his comdg. Officer. High water prevented his taking the mule across river. Capt. Tullus Asst. Pro. Mar. afterwards told witness that his title to mule was good and gave him a paper to that effect (now lost). Sold mule to Defdt. For $60.00 at time of capture was worth very little, was branded U.S.
Wm. Winn, sworn, was confed. soldier, saw order to take animals etc. L.J. Mallard, Defdt, sworn. Bought mule from W.J. Mallard, received paper given by Capt. Tullis, since lost; said paper stated that W.J. Mallard had good title to sell or trade mule, and bore signature of Capt. T. Asst. Pro. Mar. Mule was worth when seized $50.00. Col John Winn sworn. Had been confed. Off. & seized animals under orders. Considered this a lawful capture, was impossible to deliver it to comdg officers.
[duplication of image 361 omitted]
Report of Col. Gaulden in Case of LeConte vs. Mallard
After hearing evidence & arguments decided.
There are two pleas filed to pltffs action. 1st plea to acquit 2nd the general issue. To sustain the 1st would be a bar to pltffs right of recovery. Evidence to sustain must show that the case had been settled by proper authority. Claims the decision of Capt. Tullis void as pltff had no notice of trial at that time, was not present when the decision was rendered. Thinks Capt. Tullis had no judicial power.
It is shown that the mule was given to Pltff by a Federal Officer in payment for a horse taken from him. Thereby giving him a clear title to the same. Defence rest their title on the order of Col. Hood, who valor seems to lie in the heels Image #363 of his boots. They have a very great facility for losing their orders & papers also.
Thinks Hood had authority to seize animals of the U.S. but questions his right to take any that had been given to private parties.
As the mule was never turned over to Confed. authorities to sustain this plea would be to acknowledge the right of one man to take & hold another’s property.
Thinks the right of Fed. Officers to exchange animals unquestionable. Holds the Pltffs title to be good even against the U.S. Orders that Defd’t pay Pltff $30.00 & pay cost of suit. Is pleased to forward report to Gen Tillson, who can, if he has erred, relieve and remove him.
Freedman’s Court
July 1866
Morris Leconte vs. L.J. Mallard
Decision of Wm. B. Gaulden
A.B.R.F. & A.L.
Morris Leconte Col’d. Vs. L.J. Mallard } Trover for a mule, Freedman’s Court – L.C. July 16th / 66
The above case came in to be tried before me and after the hearing the evidence as above written and the above argument I proceeded to make the following decision.
There are two pleas filed to pltff’s actions.
1st the plea of autre fois acquit 2nd the general issue.
If the first plea is sustained by the evidence it is a bar to plttf’s right of recovery. To sustain this plea the evidence must show; that the matter in issue has been tried by some competent tribunal and the question decided against the Plaintiff on the merits.
Does the evidence show this. I think not. It appears that sometime about the collapse of the now defunct confederacy the pltff applied to Capt Tullis for a summons for defend’t to show cause why he should not give up the mule in dispute. That defdn’t appeared some days afterwards. Morris not being present and without notice of the investigation Capt Tullis gave deponent a paper saying his title to mule was good. This paper now lost. If Capt T. intended this as a decision, I respectfully submit that this decision is & was void and binds no body. Morris was no party to this Image #366 ex parte investigation as it was distinctly proven by Morris and Wm. J. Mallard that Morris was not present and had no notice of it; on the contrary after it was over on the same day Pltff demanded an investigation which was refused by Capt T. for want of time.
I am not informed what Capt Tullis powers were but I am led to believe that he had no judicial power, and only gave a decision as to possession leaving the question of title to judicial tribunal; analogous to the act of 1821 of the Legislature of Georgia; ?decision? under which in no wise affect the title or prevent a party from bringing another action before another tribunal under his title. If these propositions be true in law then this plea is effectually disposed of.
I will now proceed to the plea of the general issue and evidence under it. It is shown by the evidence for Pltff and not denied by defend’t that the mule in dispute was given by a federal officer to pltff in lieu of one taken from him by the federals. That he took possession of it; & brought it home this then gave to pltff a good title against all the world except the true owner, and against him if that owner was the United States.
How is this title sought to be diverted: #Image 367 not by the United States she is no party here, nor by any one who sets up either equitable or legal claim but by defendant who claims his title through one who maintains that title; through an order issued by Lieut Col Hood who was in command of Liberty County until a few foragers from Sherman’s Army came in about ten miles of him when he incontinently fled south of the Altamaha leaving his command behind.
I know him well, his valor seemed to lay in the heels of his horse. He is or was a mighty man for fighting parties in “buckram suits.” The defense then rests their title to the mule on an order issued by this gallant Col. to his soldiers to capture all United States horses, he in the meantime “bottled” up south of the Alatamaha; and send them over with the order now lost. These orders have quite a facility to get lost. One of the witnesses says he also ordered the removal of all negroes south of the Alatamaha. Under this order and the act of the last Legislature of Georgia being an act for relief of persons who were soldiers of the Confederate Army for acts done under orders of officers.
This act provides that before a party can claim any benefit under it, it must first be shown that the officer had a right to issue such order. I suppose this distinguished officer had the right to issue an order to capture United States horses according to the Image #368 laws of war; but that he had the right to issue an order to capture horses which had been given to negroes and white citizens of Georgia by officers of the United States Army; I utterly deny. After they had been thus given or sold they were no longer United States property but the property of the citizens of Georgia. Much less had he any right to issue an order for the removal of negroes south of the Alatamaha. If any such right existed it must have been by virtue of law or order of the Confederate Government. And I have never seen such. Again it appears from the evidence that this mule was never turned over to the Confederate authorities; and was obtained by the Captain & by him sold to defend’t. Under this evidence were I to sustain this defence, it would be sustaining a naked robbery, depriving one man of his property and giving it to another without a shadow of claim either legal or equitable. The argument of the learned counsel Judge Norman is more subtle than solid or sound. His argument is [word] with much ability but his premises being wrong, his conclusions must also be wrong.
He sets out with the proposition that the federal officers had no right to give or dispose of hoses or mules. Image #369 I think they had; when on the march they gave or traded off broken down stock for better and I know that they frequently exercised this right in Liberty County when on the march through and I shall hold the title thus acquired good not only against the United States but against the world except in the case of the true owners; application in which case I should look to the legality of the taking by the Army of the United States and legality of their disposition. In every possible view which I can take of the case at issue the judgment must be for the pltff. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the defend’t do pay to the plaintiff the sum of thirty dollars being the value provided of the mule; and the costs of this proceeding.
In conclusion I am glad to say that if either party if dissatisfied with my decision I shall be pleased to forward my decision with their appeal to Gen Tillson; where I can be reviewed and reversed if wrong.
Feby 16th /66
[Signed] W.B. Gaulden
A.B.R.F. & A L for L.C. [Agent for the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen & Abandoned Lands for Liberty County]
Arguments of Counsel
Petition, evidence and arguments of Judge Norman
Petition for Certiorari or Review
Georgia, Liberty County }
To Major Genl Davis Tillson, assistant Commissioner of the Freedmans Bureau for the State of Georgia
The Petition of L. John Mallard, respectfully sheweth, that one Morris LeConte (colored) instituted his suit against your petitioner in the Freedmans Court for said County in an action of Trover for the recovery of a mule, once in his possession but to which your petitioner now claims title.
The case was tried by Col. Wm. B. Gaulden agent of the Freedmans Bureau for said County, and was decided adversely to your petitioner, but your petitioner honestly believes that the said Agent erred in so deciding. All which will more fully appear by a careful review and investigation of the evidence and law appertaining to said case.
Wherefore your petitioner prays that said decision may be reversed, and overruled, if in the justice of the case, the law and the evidence may render said error manifest to Your Honor. And your petitioner, as in duty bound will ever pray etc.
L. John Mallard
By his Atty
William S. Norman
McIntosh C.O. Lib Co. Ga
Freedman’s Court, Hinesville
July 16th / 66 Liberty Co. Ga
Morris LeConte (col) vs. L. John Mallard } Trover for the Recovery of a Mule
This case was an action of Trover, brought by Morris LeConte (freedman) for the recovery of a mule, claimed by him, and, in the possession of L. J. Mallard.
Said case came up for trial before Col. W.B. Gaulden, Agent for said county of the Freedmans Bureau.
Isaiah Beasley appeared as counsel for plaintiff, and W.S. Norman for defence. The defendant filed the plea of “autre fois acquit” or in other words that the case had been already adjudicated, and also the plea of the general issue.
To expedite time His Honor decided to try the case under both issues at the same time. Morris LeConte the plaintiff was introduced as a witness who having sworn testified that about the 1st Feb 1865 he went to Federal Camp near Savannah, when he was told by the Federal officers that he could take any horses or mules that he might find grazing without halters. Plaintiff accordingly took possession of a little sorrel mule, the subject of this suit, and carried said mule home. Plaintiff had not returned home more than half an hour, when said mule was taken from Plaintiff’s house Image #373 at night, by William J. Mallard, as Plaintiff pursued by tracking the mule to Mr. Jackson’s where he found the mule in the possession of said Mallard, who promised to return said mule, but has never done so. Said mule is now in the possession of L. John Mallard the defendant, sold to defendant by said William J. Mallard. Plaintiff had lost a horse by being taken by the Federal soldiers. When Capt. Tullis, a federal officer[,] was stationed in Riceboro, plaintiff applied to him for redress after the collapse of the Confederacy in May or June 1865. Capt. Tullis gave Plaintiff a summons for William J. Mallard which he carried to said Mallard’s house, and left with his wife. Plaintiff saw William J. Mallard at Capt Tullis’s headquarters afterwards when Mallard told Plaintiff that the case had been settled and afterward saw Capt Tullis, who said that he was going off and had no time to bother with no horse business. Said mule was worth about fifty dollars. Plaintiff prosecuted his claim no farther, until the present suit. Other witnesses were introduced, substantiating the above testimony, and which is admitted by the defendant to be correct except as to value, and other minor particulars. So much for the testimony on the part of the plaintiff.
The defense then introduced William J. Mallard who being sworn testified that he was a Confederate soldier under the command of Col’ Arthur Hood, a cavalry officer of the Confederate States. That when Hood retreated from this section of country across the Altamaha he gave orders to his men to seize all horses or mules on this side of said River, belonging to the United States or branded U.S. Acting under said orders he seized the mule in controversy in the name of the Confederate States, and reported said capture to his commanding officer. Owing to the “freshet” in the river, he was not able to carry said mule across said river and the collapse of the Confederacy found witness in possession of said mule. From after said collapse Capt. Tullis a Federal officer was stationed in Riceboro. Witness received a summons from Capt Tullis to report immediately at his head quarters, to answer the complaint of Morris LeConte in relation to said mule. Witness reported in two or three days, as ordered, when Capt Tullis inquired into the matter and informed witness that he considered said mule a lawful capture, first by the Confederate States, and next by the collapse of the Confederacy, a re-capture by the United States. That inasmuch as William J. Mallard, the witness, was in possession of said mule, when an order was issued by the Federal Military authorities, allowing persons to Image #374 retain U.S. Government mules, he considered witness’s title to said mule good, and accordingly Capt Tullis gave witness a paper (now lost or mislaid) which stated that witness had a good title to said mule, and had the privilege of selling or trading him as he saw proper. Whereupon witness sold said mule to L. John Mallard the defendant for fifty dollars. Witness testifies that the mule at the time of capture was poor, with a dreadful sore on his back, was worth but little, and was broken-winded. Witness kept the mule for three months before selling him, in which time he had improved & said mule was branded U.S.
William Winn was then introduced for the Defence, who being sworn testified that he also had been a Confederate soldier under the command of Col. Hood. Had seen the orders alluded to given by Col Hood, which commanded that all United States horses or mules, or all branded U.S. or C.S. in the possession of negroes should be seized for the Confederate States, for the purpose of mounting his men, and the negroes should be transported across the Altamaha River.
The defendant L. John Mallard was then sworn, and testified that he had purchased said mule from William J. Mallard for fifty dollars. That William J. Mallard gave him the paper from Capt Tullis alluded to, which witness had lost or mislaid but which paper stated that William J. Mallard had a good title to said mule, and had the privilege of selling or trading said mule as he pleased, and signed by Capt. Tullis as assistant Provost Marshal, upon the faith of said paper Defendant for a valuable consideration had purchased said mule. Witness stated that the mule was broken-winded with a sore on his back still, never having been well since he owned him, and was worth about thirty collars at the time of its seizure by William J. Mallard, but being kept about two or three months by him had improved and was worth more when he purchased him than at the time of his capture. Said mule was branded U.S.
Col. John Winn was also sworn and introduced as a witness for the defence who testified that he had been a Confederate officer and had seen and acted under the orders of Col. Hood alluded to. That witness considered all property seized by a soldier under orders from his superior officer from the enemy, as a lawful capture, and it was not necessary that the property Image #377, seized should be delivered to the officer giving said orders, as it was sometimes impracticable, as it was in this case.
The testimony was here closed and the counsel for the parties litigant were heard.
Beasley for Plaintiff
Norman for Defense
Argument of Defendant’s Counsel submitted to the Court in the case of
Morris LeConte vs. L. John Mallard } Trover etc
1st. The mule in controversy never was the property of Morris LeConte. His title was only a possessory title. The title of horses and mules branded U.S. in Feb 1865 was in the United States, and no Federal officer could by parol[e] create a gift of such property but the title to said property could only be conveyed by a duly authorized officer at public sales.
2nd. If the first proposition be true, then this property was the property of the United States and was liable to seizure and capture by any Belligerent in a state of war with the United States.
Lee Vattel’s Laws of Nations Book 3rd Chap. 18, paragraph 195, also ibid Book 3rd, Chap 18, paragraph 292.
3rd. This state of war existed between the United States and the Confederate States that the rights of belligerents appertained to each. That in pursuance thereof Col. Hood gave orders to his soldiers to capture the United States horses and mules branded U.S. and in the possession of negroes – acts under this order were lawful, and property seized thereby, was a lawful capture.
4. That the title to property so captured rested in the Belligerent capturing and in this case in the Confederate States. And that by the collapse of the Confederacy all the property of the Confederate States became vested in the United States, and the mule in controversy again became the property of the United States.
5. That said property being in the possession of William J. Mallard when an order was issued by the U.S. military authorities at Savannah ([month left blank] 1865) allowing persons having U.S. horses and mules in their possession (unless obtained fraudulently) to retain, and appropriate said horses and mules to their own use the title to said property became good to William J. Mallard, and from him good to defendant.
6. That this matter has already been adjudicated and settled by Capt. Tullis Assistant Provost Marshal; by the only tribunal then existing in the county, that the matter in controversy was a legal question only, and was fully settled by him. That all officers are presumed to know their duties, and discharge them promptly, and faithfully, and that it [is] not the Province of the Freedmans Court to sit in judgment upon the conduct or decision of Capt Tullis in said case.
7. The laws of Georgia No. 260 passed 15th Feb 1866 relieves Confederate soldiers for acts committed before the final surrender of the army and forces of the late Confederate States, and makes them not liable in action of damages, or other action. Consequently no suit can be brought for said property against William J. Mallard or those claiming title under him.
8. That a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration, without notice of fraud or defective title in vendor will be protected under the laws of Georgia “A Fortiori et pro tanto.” How much more should the Defendant be protected having purchased under a warrant from the assistant Provost Marshal Capt Tullis U.S.A.?
Lee Charlton’s Ref Page 140 & 3rd Kelly 448
9. Under the recent order of Major General Thomas, the title of horses and mules is not to be questioned, which have been sold at Government Sales, U.S. Why then should the decisions and adjudications of U.S. officers such as assistant Provost Marshals be questioned and set aside by agents of the Bureau. Is not this engendering strife, and rendering life and property insecure under a constitution guaranteeing equity, fraternity & equality?
Respectfully submitted
William S. Norman
Defendant’s Atty