Book'lii5lSS_ 60th Congress, I HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. J Report M Session. \ ( No. 543. rJ9' ALLOWANCES OF CERTAIN CLAIMS REPORTED BY COURT OF CLAIMS UNDER BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS. January 31, 1908. — Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to he printed. Mr. Haskins, from the Commitjbee on War Claims, submitted the ^ following REPORT. [To accompany H. R. 15372.] The claims embraced in this bill are largely for stores and supplies furnished the Army of the United States during the war for the sup- pression of the rebellion by loyal citizens residing in the loyal States and by loyal citizens residing in States declared in rebellion; claims of volunteer officers who served during the civil war for pay for services rendered between date of commission and date of muster; also claims of churches, colleges, and other eleemosynary societies. These claims were referred to the Com't of Clauns for a finding of facts under the provisions of the Bowman Act and then returned to Congress by the said court with findings of fact in each case. During the Fifty-eighth and Fifty-ninth Congresses your committee referred a number of claims of officers of the volunteer forces who served during the civil war to the Court of Claims for a finding of facts under the provisions of the Bo\\mian Act. Harsh and technical rulings of the War Department have in many cases worked great injustice, and it seemed to your committee that the court was the proper tribunal for the initial consideration of the rights of this worthy class of clamiants. The rule which has been applied by the Treasury Department in many of these cases has worked great injustice. The rulings of to-day, under existing laws and changed conditions, are much more liberal than they were a few years ago, and claims which were then rejected are to-day allowed. The accounting officers hold, however, that where a claim has been once passed upon it can not be again taken up and considered, but stands res adjudicata in their Depart- ment. Many of the former rulings of the accounting officers have been modified or changed by the decisions of the courts, but those '■^ m "([ 0<\ t-4-80 2 ' ALLOWANCE OF CEETATlSr CLAIMS. -"Tl 533 officers hold — and 3'our committee do not question the propriety of such holding — that even where the courts have decided in the officer's favor they can not take up a case which has once been passed upon by their predecessors. The result is that in many cases officers of the same organization are settled with and paid upon an enthely different basis; items of credit allowed to one are denied to the other. The injustice of this condition is apparent. The following acts of Congress were passed to provide for the psij- ment of commissioned officers who had entered upon duty prior to muster, but who, under existing orders of the War Department, could not be paid for such service, to wit: Laws to Provide for the Muster akd Pay of Certain Officers and Enlisted Men of the Volunteer Forces. [14 Stat. L., p. 368.] JOINT RESOLUTION for the relief of certain officers of the Army. Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Ihtited States of Amer- ica in Congress assembled, That in every case in which a commissioned officer actually- entered on duty as such commissioned officer, but by reason of being killed in battle,^ capture by the enemy, or other cause beyond his control, and without fault or neglect of his own, was not mustered within a period of not less than thirty days, the Pay Depart- ment shall allow to such officer full pay and emoluments of his rank from the date on which such officer actually entered on such duty as aforesaid, deducting from the amount paid in accordance with this resolution all pay actually received by such officer for such period. Sec. 2. And be it further resolved. That the heirs or legal representatives of any officer whose muster into service has been or shall be amended hereby, shall be entitled to receive the arrears of pay due such officer or the pension* provided by law for the grade into which such officer is mustered under the provisions of the first section ot this resolution. Approved, July 26, 1866. [29 Stat. L., p. 593.] ^ AN ACT to provide for the relief of certain officers and enlisted men of the volunteer forces. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Arnerica in Congress assembled, That any person who was duly appointed or commissioned to be an officer of the volunteer service during the war of the rebellion, and who was subject ■^to the mustering regulations at the time applied to members of the volunteer service shall be held and considered to have been mustered into the service of the United States in the gi-ade named in his appointment or commission from the date from which he was to take rank under and by the terms of his said appointment or commission, whether the same was actually received by him or not, and shall be entitled to pay, emoluments, and pension as if actually mustered at that date: Provided, "That at the date from which he was to take rank by the terms of his said appointment or commis- sion there was a vacancy to which he could be so appointed or commissioned, and his command had either been recruited to the minimum number requu-ed by law and the reo-ulations of the War Department, or had been assigned to duty m the field, and that he was actually performing the duties of the grade to which he was so appointed or commissioned; or if not so performing such duties, then he shall be held and consid- ered to have been mustered into service and to be entitled to the benefits of such mus- ter from such time after the date of rank given in his commission as he may have actu- ally entered upon such duties: Provided further. That any person held as a prisoner of war or who may have been absent by reason of wounds, oi m hospital by reason of disability received in the service in the line of duty, at the date of issue of his apj)Oint- ment or commission, if a vacancy existed for him in the grade to which so appointed or commissioned, shall be entitled to all the benefits to which he would have been entitled under this act if he had been actually performing the duties of the grade to which he was appointed or commissioned at said date: Provuled further, That this act shall be construed to apply only in those cases where the commission bears date prior to June twentieth, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, or after that date when the com- mands of the persons appointed or commissioned were not below the minimum number required by then existing laws and regulations: And provided further, That the pay and ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. S to allowances actually received for the period covered by the recognition extended under tS this act shall be deducted from the sums otherwise to be paid thereunder. •o Sec. 2. That the heirs or legal representatives of any person whose muster into ^ service shall be recognized and established under the terms of this act shall be entitled oj to receive the arrears of pay and emoluments due, and the pension, if any, authorized Qj by law, for the grade to which recognition shall be so extended. Sec. 3. That the pay and allowances of any rank or grade paid to and received by any military or naval officer in good faith for services actually performed by such, officer in such rank or grade during the war of the rebellion, other than as directed in the fourth proviso of the first section of this act, shall not be charged to or recovered back from such officer because of any defect in the title of such officer to the office, rank, or grade in which such services were so actually performed. Sec. 4. That all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act be, and the same are hereby, repealed. Approved, February 24, 1897. The muster and pay of officers of the vohinteer forces as con- sidered by the Court of Claims follows : ^Vhen one is commissioned as second lieutenant in a volunteer regiment by the governor of the State whence the regiment came, and is assigned to duty by the colonel ■ 'commanding, in a company of which he has been first sergeant, and after applying for muster-in and being refused continues to incur all the responsibilities and perform all the duties of a commissioned officer, commanding the company in battle, and being the only officer attached to it, he is entitled to be paid as such, notwithstanding that at the time he was assigned to duty it had fallen below the minimum number entitling it to a second lieutenant. (Lieut. Henry's case, p. 162; 6 Ct. Cls.) The court further said: The court is not unmindful of the learned argument addressed to it by the Assistant Attorney-General, but it is also remembered that this suit affects not the claimant alone, but a class of citizens who deserve well of their country, and who their country desires should receive the full measure of legal justice to which they may be entitled. For them there is no appeal to the Supreme Court; for the defendants there is. If this suit be decided adversely to the claimant by this court, the decision will be final against all of these soldiers. They are men who rose from the ranks by hard fighting and good conduct, earning their commissions before they got them, and working for them after they came; and it seemg a strange anomaly that six years after the war ended such men should be driven to seek the fruits of their promotion in a court of justice. The defendants appealed to the .Supreme Court of the United States, v/hich court affirmed the action of the Court of Claims. (17 Wallace, p. 405, case of United States v. Henry.) INCOME TAX DEDUCTED FROM PAY OF OFFICERS. The Comptroller of the Treasury rendered a decision on the income tax erroneously deducted from pay of officers, to wit : Where aright to pay and allowances accrued prior to August 1, 1870, the income tax authorized by laws enacted prior to that date is a proper stoppage against such pay and allowances, but where the right to collect pay and allowances for services rendered prior to August 1, 1870, did not exist until created by a law enacted after July 31, 1870, no part of the pay and allowances is taxable. (Decisions of the Comp- troller of the Treasm-y, vol. 13, p. 387, December 7, 1906; see also 39 Ct. Cls. R., case of Wellington Barry.) CLAIMS FOR STORES AND SUPPLIES FURNISHED THE ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES DURING THE WAR FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE REBELLION. The act of July 4, 1864 (13 Stat. L., 381), conferred jurisdiction of this class of cases upon the Quartermaster and Commissary-General, but limited it to claims of loyal citizens arising in States not in rebel- lion. After the war closed Congress and its committees were flooded with claims of citizens who had remained loyal throughout the war, 4 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. but who had resided in the insurrectionary States. Congressional faciHties not being adequate for the proper examination of the vast number of claims of tliis character which were presented, the act of March 3, 1871, was passed (16 Stat. L., 524). This act created a com- mission, known as the "Southern Claims Commission," which was given jurisdiction of claims for stores and supplies furnished the armies of the United States by loyal citizens residing in States declared in rebellion. Thus, until these two acts expired by their own limitations, there was a forum in which the cases of loyal citizens residing in loyal States, and also of those residing in insurrectionary States, might be,, tried and determined. Under both acts the findings or reports in each case were reported to Congress for appropriation, and w^ere provided for at each ensuing session by appropriation bills passed as regularl}^ as au}^ other of the general supply bills. These reports or findings were never questioned, but were taken as of course and appropriation made accordingly. After the expiration of the life of the wSouthern Claims Commission and of the act of July 4, 1864, there remained a large number of cases in which the citizens felt that the}^ had been aggrieved by the findings made, especially upon the question of loyalty. The work of both the Commission and the Quartermaster-General was largely done through special agents and was ex parte in character. In addition to this, the rule of procedure in the Southern Claims Commission, which required every claimant whose demand amounted to over .$10,000 to appear in person before the Commission, worked great hardship. Public sentiment was still disturbed by the passions engendered by the war of the rebellion, and many of the reports made in these cases, for these and other reasons, were patently unjust to the clkimants. Congress was again flooded with petitions and bills for relief, and on March 3, 1883, passed the act now known as the "Bowman Act," and which is as follows : [The Bowman Act, 22 Stat. L., p. 485.] AN ACT to afford assistance and relief to Congress and the Executive Departments in the investi- gation of claims and demands against the Government. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever a claim or matter is pending before any com- mittee of the Senate or House of Representatives, or before eitlier House of Congress, which involves the investigation and determination of facts, the committee or House may cause the same, with the vouchers, papers, proofs, and documents pertaining thereto, to be transmitted to the Court of Claims of the United States, and the same shall there be proceeded in under such rules as the court may adopt. \^^ien the facts shall have been found, the court shall not enter judgment thereon, but shall report the same to the committee or to the House by which the case was transmitted for its consideration. Sec. 2. That when a claim or matter is pending in any of the Executive Depart- ments which may involve controverted questions of fact or law the head of such Department may transmit the same, with the vouchers, papers, proofs, and docu- ments pertaining thereto, to said court, and the same shall be there proceeded in under such rules as the court may adopt. When the facts and conclusions of law shall have been found, the court shall not- enter judgment thereon, but shall report its findings and opinions to the Department by wliich it was transmitted for its guid- ance and action. Sec. 3. The jurisdiction of said couit shall not extend to or include any claim against the United States growing out of the destruction or damage to property by the Army or Navy during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, or for the use and occupation of real estate by any part of the military or naval forces of the United States in tlie operations of said forces during the said war at the seat of war; nor shall ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 5 the said court have jurisdiction of any claim against the United States which is now barred by virtue of the provisions of any law of the United States. Sec. 4. In any case of a claim for supplies or stores taken by or furnished to any part of military or naval forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the petition shall aver that the person who fur- nished such supplies or stores, or from whom such supplies or stores were taken, did not give any aid or comfort to said rebellion, but was throughout that war loyal to the Government of the United States, and the fact of such loyalty shall be a jurisdic- tional fact; and unless the said court shall, on a preliminary inquiry, find that the person who furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same were taken as aforesaid, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war, the court shall not have jurisdiction of such cause, and the same shall, without further proceedings, be dismissed. Sec. 5. That the Attorney-General, or his assistants, under his direction, shall appear for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States in all cases which may be transmitted to the Court of Claims under this act, with the same power to interpose counterclaims, offsets, defenses for fraud practiced or attempted to be practiced by claimants, and other defenses, in like manner as he is now I'equired to defend the United States in said court. Sec 6. That in the trial of such cases no person shall be excluded as a witness because he or she is a party to or interested in the same. Sec. 7. That reports of the Court of Claims to Congress under this act, if not finally acted upon during the session at which they are reported, shall be continued from session to session and from Congress to Congress until the same shall be finally acted upon . Approved, March 3, 1883. The practical effect of tliis act was to transfer the jurisdiction which had before been vested in the Southern Claims Commission to the Court of Claims. That court was given no broader jurisdiction and no greater latitude than its predecessor, but it permitted those who felt aggrieved by the findings of the Southern Claims Commission to have a rehearing of their case upon reference from the appropriate committees of either House of Congress, and it enabled such person to have at least the satisfaction of a judicial determination of his rights. The object of the act, as expressed in the title, is "to afford relief to Congress and the Executive Departments in the investigation of claims and demands against the Government," and the first section of the act expressly devolves upon the Court of Claims " the investigation and determination of the facts" of each case, and ''report the same to the committee or to the House by which the cause was transmitted for its consideration." Thus it appears that it was the express intention of Congress, by the enactment of this statute, to relieve its committees from the duty and labor of investigating and determining facts, for which experience had demonstrated its members had neither the time nor facilities, and impose that duty upon a judicial tribunal whose judges were trained to such investigation, and before whom each party might be represented. Its purpose was to give each side a judicial hearing, upon evidence taken by judicial methods, in lieu of ex parte determinations upon ex parte testimony. And when the facts are thus found by the court why are they not res adjudicata as in other cases before the same court ? Any other conclusion than tliis nullifies the statute. If, after the facts of a case are found in favor of a claimant and reported to Con- gress, a committee of either House may contest the findings of the court and set them aside, how is Congress afforded relief or its com- mittees spared the labor of investigation? No object has been gained by the investigation, while the claimant has been put to useless 6 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. expense and the time and labor of the court has been wasted to no practical purpose. And not only this, for if Congress or its com- mittees may overrule the findings of the court when in favor of a claimant, it may with equal propriety overrule its findings when they are against him and in favor of the Government ; and the result will be, if this principle is once established, that every case under the Bowman Act, however decided by the court, will come back to Con- gress, thus restoring the very state of things that the Bowman Act was intended to obviate. The only safe and just rule upon this subject is that adopted by the Supreme Court, and that is to hold that the findings of the Court of Claims ' ' import absolute verity and conclude both parties." Cases of this character which have been transmitted to the Court of Claims have been properly defended by the Attorney-General and his assistants, and only a small percentage of the claims tried and dis- posed of have received favorable consideration, the sums awarded only averaging from 8 to 10 per cent of the sums claimed. The claims rejected have been largely so for the reason that the proof of loyalty to the United States was not deemed satisfactory, and we entertain but little doubt that the same percentage will follow future cases. It is true that in the general jurisdiction cases the Court of Claims is empowered to render what is technically called a judgment, while in Bowman Act cases their power extends only to the finding of facts, but in neither instance is Congress inconcluded, and it is within its discretion to refuse to pay final judgments of the Court of Claims in general jurisdiction cases, even when they are affirmed by the Supreme Court. Fortunately, however, for the honor and integrity of the Government in its dealings with citizens, Congress has always regarded all fuial judgments of its courts as conclusive, and every general defi- ciency bill passed since the organization of the Court of Claims in 1863 has contained large appropriations to meet such judgments. The same considerations which make it imperative upon Congress to appropriate to pay final judgments of its courts should dictate the line of policy to be adopted with regard to findings of fact under the Bowman Act. It is a general rule of international law, and has been laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in many cases, that a person residing in an enemy's country is an enemy so far as his property rights are concerned. In modern practice, however, this rule has been disregarded when the necessity has arisen for supplying the invading army from the surrounding country. Wlien General Scott invaded Mexico, he left behind him no unpaid bills for stores and supplies, and when Emperor William marched in triumph into the ciij of Paris he paid for every pound of produce taken from the French peasantry and consumed by his troops. Secretary Marcy's letter of instruction to General Taylor as to the conduct of the Mexican war contained the following : The instructions heretofore given have required you to treat with great kindness the people, to respect private property, and to abstain from appropriating it to public use without purchase at a fair price. This rule of common humanity should apply with greater force to the late war of the rebellion, and especially so where it appears that those who furnished the supplies were, though living in States in insurrection, nevertheless true and loyal to the Federal Government. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIK" CLAIMS. 7 LACHES. The claims commission commonly known' as the ''Southern Claims Commission" was established by the act approved March 3, 1871 (16 Stat. L., 524). Said act provided that the President should nominate three commissioners, who should hear and determine the claims which might be presented by citizens who had remained loyal adherents of the Government of the United States, for stores and supplies taken or furnished during the civil war, in States which had been proclaimed in insurrection. A careful examination of said act shows that 'no provision was therein made limiting the time within which claims might be filed before said Commission, and no limitation was ever prescribed until the enactment of an act which was approved March 3, 1873 (17 Stat. L., 577), which act provided — That the commissioners of claims shall not receive any petition for the allowance of any claim or claims, unless such petition shall be presented to and filed with them on or before the 3d day of March, 1873. * * * From the above statement of the law it will be observed that the act prohibiting the filing of petitions before said Commission went into effect the very day it was approved, citizens interested in pre- senting their claims before the Commission having no warning what- ever that the time for filing their petitions was to cease and terminate on March 3, 1873. In other words, said act approved March 3, 1873, abrogated the right to file a claim before said Commission from the very date of its approval, without a single day's notice. It is further noted that said commission was not actually open to the filing of claims even for a full period of two years, as the com- missioners were not actually appointed and did not enter upon the performance of their duties until some time after the approval of said act of March 3, 1871, authorizing their appointment. As it is apparent that the Government, in terminating without warning the right to file old claims before said commission, acted without a proper and fair regard for the rights of citizens, who had no reason to suppose that the time for filing their claims was to be thus abruptly terminated, it would seem to follow that the failure of claimants to file their claims before said commission should not be deemed as evidence of negligence or laches on their part, but such claimants should rather be regarded as the victims of misfortune in that their right to present their claims to said commission was termi- nated without warning to them. It is to be further noted that the first report of said commission, made to the Speaker of this House on December 11, 1871, shows that the commission had adopted a rule that in all claims for $3,000 or upwards it was required that all witnesses be brought before the commission in Washington City, to give their testimony. Such a rule obviously could not be complied with by many claimants by reason of the great expense incident to compliance with the rule and many claims were therefore abandoned. Later said rule was amended by the commission and made appli- cable only in claims for 15,000 or more. Congress evidently recog- nized the hardship of even that rule, however, and by act approved May 11, 1872 (17 Stat. L., 97), provided that testimony must be given in person before the commission only in claims for $10,000 or more. It would seem from examination of the index of claims filed 8 ALLOWANCE OP CEETAIE" CLAIMS. before said commission, however, that even this rule rendered it impossible for a large number of claimants to prosecute their claims to a final decision, as the record shows that hundreds were reported as "barred" owing to failure to submit proof in support of the claims, under the law and rules. Your committee has commented at some length upon said "South- ern Claims Commission," because that Commission w^as the only tribunal which was ever open to the great majorit^^ of citizens whose claims arose from the civil war. It is true that the Quartermaster- General and Commissary-General, by act approved July 14, 1864 (13 Stat. L., 381), were given jurisdiction to pass upon the claims of citizens of loyal States, and this jurisdiction was extended by joint resolutions of June 18, 1866 (14 Stat. L., 360), and of July 28, 1866 (14 Stat. L., 370) to claims of citizens of the counties of Berkeley and Jefferson, W. Va., and to claims of loyal citizens of the State of Tennessee; but as compared with the whole number of claims of loyal citizens of the Southern States, the number which could have been filed before the Quartermaster-General and Com- missary-General is so small as to be of comparativel}^ very little importance. Some claims embraced in the bill which your committee has pre- pared and reported were not presented to said Claims Commission, to the Quartermaster-General, or Commissary-General; but in view of the law and facts above set forth, and of the further fact, apparent from a painstaking examination of the proceedings of Congress, that all claims arising from the civil war will shortly be disposed of, it is submitted by your committee that the failure of claimants to present their claims to said Commission, or to the Quartermaster-General, or Commissary-General (in the very limited number of instances where presentation to said officers was possible) should not be now held to preclude these claimants from receiving the compensation which has been found due them, after judicial inquiry, by the Court of Claims. A large number of claims embraced in the bill prepared and reported by the committee were presented to said Commission and rejected, and now^, after a full and fair trial before the Court of Clauns, it has been judicially decided that the claims are just and that the United States is indebted to the claimants in the sums found b}^ the Court of Claims. Some claims were rejected by the Claims Commission under an erroneous theory of the law; the Commission refused to entertain the claims of persons who had been declared banla'upt ; it declined to hear the claims of corporations or of such quasi corporations as churches, or lodges, and narrowed its own jurisdiction so far as pos- sible. Other claims were rejected by said Commission upon ex parte reports and affidavits, made or taken b}^ agents, without permitting the claimants to be present or represented. Since these claims have been referred to the Court of Claims, however, the hearings and trials have been in accordance with established forms of judicial procedure, the United States as well as the claimants being represented by counsel. Many claims have been found by the Court of Claims to be wanting in some element and haA^e been dismissed, and the claims embraced in the bill prepared by your committee have been pro- nounced just after this judicial scrutiny and after full and fan* trials, such as to obviate any possible question as to their being thp proper subject of payment by the Government. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 9 CLAIMS OF CHURCHES, LODGES, ETC. Certain claims of churches, educational institutions, and elee- mosynary societies are embraced in the bill prepared by your com- mittee. These claims are for occupation of buildings, with incidental damages amounting in some instances to destruction of the buildings. While it has not been so reported by the Court of Claims, it is nevertheless a fact that these claims are of such a character as pre- cluded their successful prosecution before any officer or tribunal of the Government, and the onl}' recourse of these claimants was to pray Congress for relief in the premises by introduction of bills, which were referred to the Court of Claims for findings of fact. Some claims for what were termed "stores and supplies" might have been prosecuted before the Quartermaster-General and Com- missary-General, as mentioned elsewhere in this report, but it is to be noted that the jurisdiction of those officers was confuied to the claims of citizens of States not declared in insurrection, by the terms of the act approved July 4, 1864, with the exception of claims arising m the States of Tennessee and West Virginia, but these claims for occupation of buildings, etc., were rejected by the Quartermaster-General when- ever presented, whether from loyal States or from States which had been declared in insurrection. This clearly appears from the letter of the Secretary of War, dated April 8, 1890, and set forth in this report, with the accompanjnng papers. Aside from the Quartermaster-General and Commissary-General no officers or tribunal of the Government had jurisdiction of what are commonly termed "war claims" of citizens save the Southern Claims Commission before mentioned in this report. That Commis- sion, however, took the view that while its jurisdiction extended to certain classes of claims of loyal citizens of insurrectionary States, yet it could not take cognizance of claims of associations of citizens, such as churches, and that if the churches were considered as being corporations or quasi corporations they then could not be considered, on the theory that a corporation could not be deemed a citizen of the United States within the intendment of the act establishing such Commission. Without commenting upon the correctness of such holdings by said Commission, they are here mentioned for the pur- pose of showing why such claims as these were not prosecuted before that Commission. Eeference is made to the report of said Commission found on page 381 of the consolidated reports for the years 1871, 1873, 1874, in the claim of the Indiana Methodist Church, of Portsmouth, Va., in which it was stated by the Commission: This claim is for and on belialf of a corporation. After full consideration and con- sultation we have heretofore decided that a corporation has no standing before this Commission. It can not prove "loyalty" and is not a "citizen." The claun is there- fore disallowed. Reference is also made to the report oi said commission found on pages 534-535 of said consolidated reports, in the case of the Calhoun Presbyterian Church, of Charleston, Tenn., in which the commission said : We have no jurisdiction over claims of such associations, and therefore must reject the claim. 10 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. From all the foregoing it is seen that no legal remedy was ever open to these claimants, and they were forced to present their claims directly to Congress in the first instance. The inclusion of these claims in the bill is in accordance with the most cases, the reasonable rental value during the occupation of a long-continued practice of Congress, and each claim represents, in building or the reasonable value of the building at time of authorized destruction otherwise than in actual military operations. This prac- tice and the general rules of decision in war claims are succinctly stated in the opinion of the Court of Claims in case of Presbyterian Church at Murfreesboro v. United States (33 Court of Claims report, 339, 340, 431), as follows: The invariable rule which has governed the court in this class of cases — that is, cases for war damages — is this: The court allows only for property taken to be used, and only for the value to the Government of the thing taken. That is to say, the court has never allowed for prop- erty taken to be destroyed, or for the damages which the owner suffered by reason of the taking. Where houses were torn down and trees felled for military reasons, noth- ing has been allowed. Where fruit trees and shade trees and fences were taken for fuel, the owner has been allowed only for so much cord wood. Where a building was torn down and the material used, the allowance has been for so much old brick and second-hand lumber. Where a blooded stallion was taken for army vise, the allow- ance has been simply for a cavalry horse. "Where an imported cow was killed and eaten by the troops, the allowance has been only for so much beef. Where the property taken was of a kind which could not properly be regarded as quartermaster or com- missary stores, or as hospital supplies, or engineer's material, the taking has been regarded as due to the depredations of individuals, and nothing has been allowed. In a word, the general principle which governs the court is that the amounts allowed are to be only to the extent of the benefit which the Government received by the taking, not for the injury which the owner suffered. The present case, in finding the value of the building, may seem a departure from the rule which has hitherto governed the court — the first and only exception out of the hundreds of cases of war claims which have been tried and disposed of in the course of the last fifteen years. The reason for this departure from a well-settled rule is this: The pi'oceeding in cases coming into this court under the Bowman Act is not to obtain a judgment fixing with finality the legal rights and liabilities of the parties, but simply a proceeding to procure for Congress authenticated information necessary for them to possess in matters coming before them for legislative action. It is conse- quently the duty of the court to ascertain and certify to Congress such facts as will be available and useful when the question of legislative relief shall come before the two houses. In cases of religious and charitable institutions and institutions of learning Congress has in repeated instances laid down a different rule than tha.t hereinbefore adverted to as the rule of this court for what may be termed the measure of damages. In other words, whenever Congress has given relief for the destruction of such a building, the legislative rule in repeated instances has invariably been to allow for the value of the building, as a V)uilding. The case before us is a case of that description. The court accordingly finds the value of the building as it stood when the military authorities took possession of it . Whether the owners are entitled or not entitled to that or to any relief is not a question before the court. It rests entirely within legislative discretion. The letter of the Secretary of War, above mentioned, and the accom- panying papers showing disposition made of many church claims, are as follows : claims for trse op church and school buildings, etc. Committee on War Claims, Hox"se op Representatives, Washington, D. C, Aprils, 1890. Dear Sir : Some time since I requested the Quartermaster-General to have prepared for me, for the use of the Committee on War Claims, a statement showing the claims filed in his oflice for the use, occupation, and damages to church property resulting from use and occupation by the United States Army during the late war, and indicating ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 11 the claims allowed by tlie Quartermaster-General and paid by the Government. That information with the letter of the Quartermaster-General transmitting it to the Secre- tary of War is in my possession, delivered by a messenger from the War Department, but I do not find any letter from the Secretary of War transmitting it. Will you please have examination made and if not transmitted with the usual letter have such letter written. If the letter of transmission was forwarded please to have a copy sent to me by the bearer. Very respectfully, B. A. Enloe, M. C. Hon. Redpield Proctor, Secretary of War. War Department, Washington, April 9, 1890. Sir: I have the honor to return the report of the Quartermaster-General on H. R. 5169 and 7009, returned to me with your letter of this date, in which you state that you do not find any letter of transmittal from this Department. In reply I beg to invite your attention to the inclosed copy of my letter, dated the 3d instant, to Hon. O. B. Thomas, chairman of the House Committee on War Claims, transmitting to him General Holabird's report, in response to his oral request therefor. Very respectfully, Redfield Proctor, , Secretary of War. Hon. B. A. Enloe, House of Representatives. War Department, Washington, Apri,l 3, 1890. Sir: In compliance with your oral request, I have the honor to tran.smit herewith a report from the Quartermaster-General, dated the 28th ultimo, on House bills Nos. 5169 and 7009 (copies inclosed), providing for payment of claims for the use and occupation of church and school buildings and grounds by the Government during the late war, together with a list of church claims filed in the office of the Quarter- master-General which have been paid in whole or in part, and a list of such claims which have been rejected or not paid. Very respectfully, Redfield Proctor, Secretary of War. Hon. O. B. Thomas, Chairman Committee on War Clmms, House of Representatives. p '=' War Department, Quartermaster-General's Office, Washington, D. C, March 28, 1890. Sir: I have the honor to return herewith H. R. 5169 and H. R. 7009, providing for payment of claims for the use and occupation of churches, school-buildings, etc. A list of the church claims which have been filed in this ofl&ce is herewith submitted, giving the name, locality, and amount of each claim (so far as stated) and the action taken thereon. It appears that 234 of these claims have been filed. Ninety-seven of these, aggregating $102,270.29 (so far as stated), have been paid or recommended for payment, in whole or part, and 137 claims, aggregating (so far as stated) 1247,797.38, have been disallowed or not paid, the cause of disallowance being stated on the accom- panying list. In the consideration of these claims it was found that a considerable number were presented from States and districts declared to be in insurrection during the war of the rebellion. They were precluded from favorable consideration by the President's proclamation of July 1, 1862, and by subsequent legislation of Congress. (See act of Congress, Public No. 33, of 1867.) It was the custom of this Department to place churches in the same condition as when they were taken possession of by the United States, natural wear and tear excepted, or allow a reasonable amount in money in lieu of such repairs. No general instruction for the payment of such claims appears to have been given, but each claim was decided on its merits. This practice, however, had the approval of the Secretary of War, as such cases were submitted to and approved by him from time to time. Up to 1874 it was uniformly held by this office that no rent should be paid for churches, there being no law authorizing such payment. On March 20, 1874, the claim of Trinity Protestant Episcopal Church, of Washington, D. C, for rent, stated at |2,250, was referred to the Third Auditor of the Treasury for settlement, having been recom- mended by Assistant Judge-Advocate-General Dunn and approved by the Secretary 12 ALLOWAlSrCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. of War. A number of other claims for rent of churches were paid subsequently by the direction and approval of the Secretary of War. Veiy respectfully, ■ S. B. Holabird, Quartermaster-General TJ. S. Army. The Secretary of War. * 'stores and supplies," as construed by the commissioners of CLAIMS. "When buildings are torn down, if the materials are taken to erect other buildings for the use of the Army, such materials thereby become supphes, and their value, as materials for the purpose for which they are used, is paid to the owner. It is a very inadequate compensation to him. But this rule, which allows only for the materials as supphes, and notliing for damage to the building from which they are obtained, has been acted upon uniformly for many years, and is regarded as an estabhshed usage not to be departed from. So where fields of grass or growing crops are partly trampled down and destroyed, and partly used for forage or pasturage, the latter is paid for, but the former is not. In such cases we have found greater difficulty in determining how much is destroyed and how much taken for army use. It would have been difficult at the time; how much more so after the lapse of many years ? ' 'Nothing in the act of March 3, 1871, authorizes us to allow claims for the damage or destruction of property; and in allowing for sup- plies we follow the long-settled rules of the Quartermaster's Depart- ment. Bj adopting tliis rule the claims of loyal citizens North and South are treated alike." LOYALTY, WHAT CONSTITUTES PROOF OF LOYALTY, AS COMMENTED ON OR CONSTRUED BY THE i^COURTS. b In Eeils v. The United States (3 C. Cls. K., 61) that com't held that repeated acts of kindness to Union prisoners, and assisting them to escape, accompanied with negative evidence, is good proof of loyalty under the captured and abandoned property act. In Graver v. The United States (3 ib., 83) it was held that conceal- ing, feeding, and clothing an escaped prisoner, from October till Feb- ruary, was satisfactory evidence that the claimant never gave aid or comfort to the rebellion. In Miss Edmons' case (3 ib., 179) it was decided that previous resi- dence at the North, professional business in Charleston, her sex. her legal associations, and her prompt return to her northern home at the end of the war were satisfactor}^ proofs of her loyalty, In Clark's case (3 ib., 228) the certificate of a major-general of the Union Army to the loyalty of the claimant, supported by his owii oath, was held sufficient to prove his loyalty. In Ijynch's case (3 ib., 392) it was decided that joining, but not serving in a home guard, with intent to escape conscription, was not giving aid or comfort to the rebellion. In Grossmeyer's case (4 ib,, 1) that court held that — offices and acts of affection and humanity rendered to individuals engaged in the rebellion, taxes paid where the rebel authority held sway, contributions levied and payment extorted by the presence of a power and force that could compel submission, are not willful breaches of allegiance and duty, and therefore do not come within the letter, the reason, the spirit, or purpose of the confiscation act July 17, 18(52, nor of the abandoned or captured property act of March 12, 1863. These laws are penal and do not intend to j)unish other than willful transgression. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 13 In Miller & Fillow's case (4 ib., 288) it was decided that 'involun- tary patrol duty in the Home Guard of Mobile, not military but in the nature of police duty, is not aid or comfort to the rebellion in one otherwise shown to be loyal within the meaning of the captured and abandoned property act." In Padelford's case (4 ib., 317) that court held that "to subscribe to a Confederate loan unwillingly, under threats, and in fear of vio- lence to person and property, though in the absence of direct com- pulsion or of immediate danger, holding, moreover, the stock sub- scribed for but a fortnight, is not aid or comfort to the rebellion in one who otherwise consistently opposes it in sentiment, speech, and action, within the meaning of the abandoned and captured property act." In Ealer's case (4 ib., 372) it was held that where a claimant under the abandoned and captured property act shows that his residence within the insurrectionary States during a part of the rebellion was involuntarv, and establishes his loyalty for the remainder, a pre- sumption exists in favor of his loyalty during his involuntary^ resi- dence. In the case of Quinby (4 ib., 417) that court decided three impor- tant points under tliis act of March 12, 1863, as follows: For a citizen of unquestionable loyalty, resident through the rebel- lion in an insurrectionar}^ State, who had been thrown into jail for refusing to bear arms against the United States, and who is threat- ened to be forced into the rebel army: (1) To serve in an organiza- tion intended for police purposes, and regarded by loyal persons as a resort for evading military service, and which is liable to be called into militar}^ service, and which does relieve the military of provost guard duty; (2) or to unite with others in running a vessel through the blockade, the purpose being to convey property bej^ond the control of the Confederate authorities, mth the expectation that the vessel will not return; and (3) to import through the blockade and pay duties to the Confederate custom-house upon merchandise not designed for general traffic, but to be used equally in the United States prisoners' hospital, in his own family, and in trade among loyal friends, is not, in either case, to give aid and comfort to the rebellion. In Ayer's case (4 ib., 422), it was held, that acts not committed with the mind and intention of giving aid and comfort to the rebellion, or to persons engaged therein, but under the apprehension and fear of danger to the person and property of a claimant, do not bar his right to recover}^ under the captured and abandoned property act. In the case of Hay den (4 ib., 475), it was held that — A loyal person surrounded by contending armies is not bound to abandon bis family, and removing to a retired place of safety, tbougb witbin tbe Confederate lines, is not aid and comfort to tbe rebellion. In Wilson's case (4 ib., 560), it was decided that there being no proof of the loyaltj^ of the distributees of an estate of an intestate who was loyal, the administrator is not thereby barred from recovery under the captured and abandoned property act. In Knee's case (4 ib., 583), it was held that a claimant who leaves his home and hides in the country two years to avoid conscription, and who, through much suffering, avoids the rebel military service, will not be held to show a complete record of all his acts during the re- bellion; nor that he consorted with and was known to the Union men 14 AliLOWAJSrCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. of Charleston, as would one who resided constantly there during the rebellion and made little effort to aA^oid military service. In Foster's case (5 ib., 412), it was decided that where a citizen of a loyal State takes horses from Kansas to Mobile, Ala., to sell shortlj' before the beginning of the rebellion, and, being unable to sell them until after the breaking out of the war, remained to dispose of them, and is subsequently prevented from returning to Kansas b}^ the Con- federate authorities, and sells his horses and invests the avails in cotton, continuing loyal through the war, the transaction was not in violation of the nonintercourse act, July 13, 1861 , and that to remain in an insurrectionary State under such circumstances was not an act of aid and comfort to the rebellion. In Koester's case (5 ib., 642) it was held that where one residing within an insurrectionary district enters a Confederate arsenal as a workman, his business being that of a shopkeeper, solely to avoid conscription, and while there evades serving as far as possible, receiv- ing no pay, and, in fact, paying for the appointment, it will be regarded as involuntary aid, if his loyalty otherwise be fully established. In Prince's case (5 ib., 706) it was held that where a citizen enter- taining loyal sentiments was guilty of no act of hostility to the United States, but yielded passive obedience to the government de facto in civil and local matters, his loyalty is established within the meaning of the abandoned and captured property act. In Wy lie's case (6 ib., 295) that court specifies the evidence requi- site to establish loyalty, as : (1) proof of voluntary residence in a loyal State; (2) proof of involuntary residence within an insurrectionary district, and (3) proof that the party has never given aid or comfort to the rebellion, and has consistently adhered to the United States; and the nature and requisites of this proof are stated. In Nugent's case (6 ib., 305) it was held that the name T. Nugent, jr., is not identical with Terence Nugent, jr., and where the defendant fails to connect the latter person with an election for president of the Confederate government by any other evidence than a poll list bear- ing the former name, and the claimant satisfactorily proves his con- sistent adherence to the United States, the doubt of identity should be adjudged in his favor. In the case of Alfred R. Carter v. The United States (23 C. Cls., p. 326) it was held that — Loyalty during the entire period of the war is jurisdictional in certain cases under the Bowman Act, though the property was taken after the cessation of hostilities. In the case of Mrs. Belle Osborne, executrix, v. The United States (24 C. Cls., p. 416) it was held that— The jurisdictional restriction of the statute, the loyalty of the claimant, is strictly personal ; it simply forbids the party to speak or the court to listen until it be primarily established that he was an adherent and not an enemy. The voluntary continuance of a prior partnership to carry on an innocent business after the beginning of hostilities did not make one partner disloyal because the other was. In a Congressional case a loyal partner is possessed of a right or equity in property taken for the use of the Army and entitled to have the facts found. In the case of James C. Newman, administrator, v. The United States (21 C. Cls., p. 205) it was held that— The individual whose loyalty must be proved in a Congressional case is the adminis- trator in possession of the stores or supplies at the time of seizure, and not the widow, next of kin, or creditors of an estate. ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 15 LOTALTY AS DEFINED BY THE SUPREME COURT. That a citizen yielding passive obedience to the Confederate gov- ernment is not proof of disloyalty. (Price v. United States, 5 N. and H., 706.) The presumption of disloyalty does not attach to a citizen of a loyal State who was temporaril}'' at the South at the outbreak of the rebellion, and being aged, infirm, and poor, was unable to escape. (Spain V. United States, 5 N. and H., 598.) The violation of a statute intended for the suppession of the rebel- lion was in itself an act of ''aid and comfort" within the meaning of the statute. (Gearing v. United States, 3 N. and H., 165.) So was the fitting out of a vessel in a rebel port and running the blockade maintained by the United States. (Ibid.) It is sufficient for a corporate body to show that it was incorpo- rated for a lawful purpose and that it never applied any part of its funds to aid the rebelhon. (Hebrew Congregation v. United States, 6 N. and H., 241.) The disloyalty of the administrator of a loyal intestate is no bar to a recovery. (Wilson v. United States, 4 N. and H., 559.) A trustee need not make proof of his own loyalty, but he must prove that of his cestui que trust. (Stoddart v. United States, 6 N. and H., 340.) If one of the members of a firm gave aid and comfort to the rebellion there can be no recovery by them. (Schreiner v. United States, 6 N. and H., 359.) Where one joint owner proves his loyalty and the other fails to do so judgment will be rendered in favor of the former, to the extent of his interest in the fimd. (Meldrim v. United States, 7 N. and H., 595.) Under the act of 18G3 it is not necessary that the claimant, who had purchased in good faith, should prove the loyalty of the persons from whom he bought the property. (United States v. Anderson, 9 Wal- lace, 56.) Where property purchased was in immediate peril by capture, the proceeds thereof can not be recovered under the act of 1863. (Gerst- mann v. United States, 3 N. and H., 233; McElhose v. United States, ibid., 240.) Under the captured and abandoned property act the loyalty of the distributers of the estate can not be put in issue. (Aubert v. United States, 3 N. and H., 84.) Where a claimant was found loyal by an officer charged with the duty of ascertaining that fact, and Congress gave effect to his award, the facts constitute a prima facie case of loyalty. (Hall's Case, 27 C. Cls. R., p. 438.) CORPORATIONS, LOYALTY OF. In the case of the United States v. Insurance Companies, reported in 22 Wall., page 99, which was a suit brought against the United States by two msurance companies incorporated by the legislature of Georgia in 1861 and 1863, and while the State was in armed rebelHon against the Government, the court held that corporations created by the legislature of a State while it was in armed rebellion against the Government have power, since the suppression of the rebellion, to sue in the Federal courts, if the acts of incorporation had no relation to anything else than the domestic concerns of the State, and they were neither in their apparent purpose nor in their operation hostile to the 16 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS, Union or in conflict with the Constitution; but were mere ordinary- legislation, such as might have been had had there been no war or no attempted secession, and such as is of yearly occurrence in all the States. Such corporations may in proper cases sue under the cap- tured and abandoned property act. The act, 2d March, 1867 (Rev. Stat., sec. 3480), expressly pro- hibits the executive officers from paying claims which existed prior to the war in favor of persons who promoted or encouraged the late rebellion; and, by implication, prohibits them from paying claims which originated after the war began. (Chesapeake and Ohio R. R.. Co., 20 Ct. Cls., R., p. 49.) A corporation controlled by the enemy, located and operated within his jurisdic^tion and employed in carrying on the war, must be regarded, so far as its contracting power is concerned, as a person who promoted, encouraged, and sustained the rebellion. Ibid (note by the compiler) : Since the decision by the Supreme Court in the Home Insm-ance Company's case (22 Wallace, p. 99) it has been deemed absolutely settled that corporations in the Southern States may and must make proof that they have never given aid or comfort to the rebellion, precisely as natural persons may be re- quired to. Neither the Supreme Court nor the Court of Claims has ever made any distinction in this particular between natural and artificial persons; what the one has to prove the other has to prove. When the owner of captured or abandoned property dies subse- quent to the capture, the only questions for the court to determine imder the ''Captured and abandoned property act" (12 Stat. L., p. 820) are the title and the loyalty of the decedent. The title is continued by the Administration, and the loyalty of the distributees of the estate can not be put in issue. (3 Ct. Cls. The Aubert case, p. 84.) BUSINESS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS. Up to the present time there have been referred to the Court of Claims by Congress for a finding of facts 13,171 cases, of which there are now pending 2,017. A large proportion of these cases will never be brought to trial, because of the inability of the claimants to prove loyalty throughout the civil war. It is a fair presumption that the attorneys who represent these claims have during the past years selected and culled out those cases which were most easily proved up, leaving the snags and difficult cases for the last, and after the original claimant has been found loyal it is at tliis late day in many cases cUfficult, if not impossible, to make proof upon the merits. In view of this the Department of Justice has adopted the policy of moving, under rule 93 of the Court of Claims, for the dismissal of cases in which no steps have been taken for a considerable length of time, and many such are being rapidly and finally disposed of, with the consent of the claimant's attorney. Prior to the Fifty-first Congress, claims arising under the Bowman Act aggregating $128,138.73 were appropriated for. The first gen- eral act for the pajmient of this class of cases was passed in the Fifty- first Congress; other similar acts were passed in the Fiftj'^-fifth, Fiftj^- seventh, and Fifty-eighth Congresses. The amounts appropriated were as follows : Fiftv-first Congress $573, 763. 30 Fifty-fifth Congress 1, 722, 655. 79 Fifty-seventh Congress 444, 503. 10 Fifty-eighth Congress 1. 197, 272. 60 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAHST CLAIMS. 17 During the Fifty-second, Fifty-third, and Fiftj^-fourth Congresses various private acts were passed upon findings of fact made by the Court of Claims in this class of cases, aggregating $75,003.96. Total of $4,216,331.44. Your committee believe and so report that the business of the Court of Claims arising under the Bowman Act is steadily and rapidly decreasing, not only from the fact that very few references under that act are now being made by jout committee, but from the further fact, as before cited in this report, that the best cases not only as to proof, but the largest in amount, have been disposed of b}^ that tribunal and appropriated for by Congress. It is safe to calculate that in the future Congress will be called upon to make steadily decreasing appropriations in this class of cases. The claims recommended for appropriation by this bill amount to $315,545.28. Your committee attach hereto a detailed report of claims hj States, and for the information of the House they also have had printed as an appendix to their report the findings of the Court of Claims in each case Your committee recommend that the bill do Dass. Claims by States. , States. For stores and sup- plies. For offi- cers' pay. For churches, colleges, etc. Total. $21,604.00 22,802.67 ! $21,604.00 22,802.67 $1,842.69 552.79 412.19 6.36.22 106.21 1,842.69 552.79 412.19 636.22 Florida . 4,300.00 15,508.00 4,000.00 4,406.21 15,508.00 8,813.97 4,023.97 4,813.97 4,023.97 2,456.08 1,362.91 3,341.95 2,456.08 1,362.91 3,977.00 21,123.00 .S4,255.00 11,573.95 21,123.00 1,074.26 1,074.26 12,224.00 12,224.00 2,328.72 1,055.57 556. 10 2,328.72 1,055.57 556. 10 29, 420. 00 14, 497. 00 29, 420. 00 2,802.71 53.23 554. 07 40.33 20.39 632. 18 2, 222. 47 17,299.71 53.23 554. 07 40.33 20.39 2, .525. 00 3, 157. 18 2, 222. 47 1,202.00 1,202.00 260.35 2,163.10 626.48 417. 31 1,388.81 260. 35 Ohio 2, 163. 10 626. 48 417.31 1,771.00 3,159.81 983. 33 South Carolina . 983.33 391.31 43.33 391.31 Tfinnfissftp, 66,958.00 1, 140. 00 24,950.75 7, 434. GO 12, 735. 00 79, 736. 33 Texas 1,140.00 Virginia ... . . 92.64 2,330.00 895.00 27, 373. 39 8, 329. 00 Washington . . . 115.41 522. 78 115.41 522.78 Total 255,436.42 36,910.53 21,198.33 315, 545. 28 H. Kep. 543, 60-1 2 APPENDIX. ALABAMA. WILLIAM T. HAMNER. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5752. William T. Hamner v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that William T. Hamner, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Gov-ermnent of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed November 13, 1905. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5752. William T. Hamner v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fm-nished to the military forces of the L^nited States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the coiut by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 6th day of August, 1888. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 13th day of November, 1905, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States thi'oughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 18th day of December, 1906. George A. & William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That the following property belonging to him was taken fi-om him by the United States Army and used by the said Army, to wit, the forces under the command of General Croxton, on or about the 3d and 4th of April, 1865, viz: 1 yoke of oxen $75 2 horses 300 2 mules 300 500 bushels of corn 500 4,000 pounds of fodder 80 1,000 pounds of bacon 200 200 pounds of lard 40 600 pounds of flour ' 36 200 pounds of sugar 50 Total 1 , 581 The comt, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OF FACT. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority for military pm-poses, took possession of and used property as above described belonging to claimant, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of eight hundred and five dollars ($805), no part of which appears to have been 'paid. By the Court. Filed December 24, 1906. A true copy. Test this 2d day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 18 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 19 MARY E. HAYGOOD, HEIR OF JOHN M. LAWSON. tCourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 10130. Mary E. Haygood, heir of John M. Lawson, deceased, V. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that John M. Lawson, the person alleged to have fiunished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By- the Court. Filed December 17, 1906. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10130. Maiy E. Haygood, heir of John M. Lawson, deceased, v. The United States.] i- ' STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27th day of March 1900. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 17th day of December, 1906, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of October, 1907. Messrs. George A. & Wm. B. King appeared for claimant and the Attorney-General, by P. M. Ashford, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: 1. That she is the daughter of John M. Lawson, deceased. 2. That the following property belonging to John M. Lawson was taken from him by the United States Army and used by the said Army, the date, place, and com- , mand being particularly stated below : In Lauderdale County, in the State of Alabama, on or about the 5th day of Novem- ber, 1864, by a brigade of United States troops under the command of Col. D. E. Goon, namely: 1. 500 bushels of corn $750 ' 2. 4,000 pounds of fodder 80 3. 11 head of pork hogs, 1,800 pounds 270 4. 11 head of stock hogs, 100 pounds each 100 5. 150 pounds of fodder 7 1,207 3. That a claim for said property was presented to the Southern Claims Commission but was not allowed by said tribunal because the claimant had taken benefit from the bankruptcy law and was therefore not qualified to prosecute the claim. 4. That the said claim has been presented to the Fifty-sixth Congi-ess and was by the House of Representatives of the said Fifty-sixth Congi-ess referred to the Committee on War Claims of said House, by which committee it was, on the 27th day of March, 1900, referred to this court for a finding of the facts in accordance with section 1 of an act approved March 3, 1883, entitled "An act to afford assistance and relief to Congress and the Executive Departments in the investigation of claims and demands against the Government." The court, upon the evidence and after the consideration of briefs and after hearing the arguments of the respective counsels, makes the following FINDING OF FACT. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority, took from the claimant's dece*- dent in Lauderdale County, State of Alabama, property of the kind and character above 20 aLlLowance of ceetain claims. described, whicli at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of nine hundred and twenty dollars (1920.00). No payment appears to ever have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed October 28, 1907. A true copy. Test this 29th day of November, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOHN C. McDANIEL, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOHN W. McDANIEL. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8097. Estate of John W. McDaniel, deceased, v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that John W. McDaniel, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Gov- ernment of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed February 19, 1906. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 8097. John C. McDaniel, administrator of John W. McDaniel, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use diiring the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims on the 15th day of December, 1890. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 19th day of February, 1906, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 12th day of February, 1907. George A. and William B.'King, esq., appeai'ed for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by F. DeC. Faust, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: The claimant, John W. McDaniel, respectfully represents that he is the adminis- trator of John W. McDaniel, deceased, appointed on the 8th day of September, 1897, by the probate court in and for the county of Cleburne and State of Alabama, his war- rant of authority being herewith brought into court; that said decedent was, during the late war, a resident of the State of Alabama and did not give any aid or comfort to the said rebellion, but was thi'oughout that war loyal to the Government of the United States. That the following property belonging to John W. McDaniel was taken from him by the United States Army and used by the said Army, the date, place, and command being particularly stated below: In Calhoun County, in the State of Alabama, on or about the 1st day of August, 1864, by General McCook's command, to wit: jf^lj 1. 4 No. 1 mules, $200 |800. 00 2. 1 No. 1 horse 200. 00 3. 4 saddles, at $15 60. 00 4. 200 bushels corn and 100 sacks, at $2.25 450. 00 5. 1,200 bundles of fodder and oats, at 2 cents per bundle 24. 00 6. 500 pounds of bacon, at 20 cents per pound 100. 00 7. 300 pounds of flour, at $7.50 per 100 22. 50 8. 5 bushels of com meal, at $2 10. 00 9. 1 razor 5. 00 10. 4 guns, 2 rifles, 1 double-barrel shotgun 80. 00 11. 1 coverlet 8. 00 12. 5 saddle blankets, at $1.50 7. 50 . 13. 2 silver spoons, at $2.50 5. 00 (Taken April 25, 1865, by Brig. Gen. John T. Croxton, U. S. Army.) 14. 1 No. 1 horse 250. 00 Total 2, 022.00 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 21 That a claim for said property was presented to the Southern Claims Commission, the items of said claim being as heretofore stated. Said claim was not allowed by said tribunal, the ground for said action being that it was not considered that the claimant's loyalty had been established. That the said claim has been presented to the Fifty-first Congress and was by the House of Representatives of the said Fifty-first Congress referred to the Committee on War Claims of said House, by which committee it was, on the 15th day of February, 1890, referred to this court for a finding of the facts in accordance with section 1 of an act approved March 3, 1883, entitled, "An act to afford assistance and relief to Con- gress and the Executive Departments in the investigation of claims and demands against the Government." That no other action than as aforesaid has been had on this claim in Congress or by any of the Departments; that the claimant is the sole owner of this claim and the only person interested therein; that no assignment or transfer of this claim or of any part thereof or interest therein has been made; that the claimant is justly enti- tled to the amount herein claimed from the United States; and the claimant believes the facts as stated in this petition to be true. And the claimant prays a finding of the facts in accordance with the aforesaid act. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OF FACT. There was taken from the claimant's decedent in Calhoun County, State of Alabama, by the military forces of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character described in the petition, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of seven hundred and ninety ($790) dollars. No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed February 18, 1907. A true copy. Test this 29th day of November, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assista7it Clerk Court of Claims. J. P. McCLENDON, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10328. Estate of Meredith King, deceased, v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Meie- dith King, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished siich supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was liyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed June 18, 1902. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10328. J. P. McClendon, administrator de bonis non of Meredith King, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 15th day of January, 1901. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 16th day of June, 1902, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Govermnent of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of December, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by A. C. Campbell, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Jackson County, State of Ala- bama, where his decedent resided during the late war of the rebellion; that at different 22 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAHsT CLAIMS. times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from his decedent quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $1,820 and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows: 3 horses, at 1150 ^nnn'nn 1 wagon and harness f^^^- ]^^ 40 head of hogs, at $5 Vn^n 1 ox - 10. 00 30 head of sh eep ^60-0^ 900 bushels of corn, at $1 y^^- ^^ 3,500 pounds of fodder, at $2 70-0^ 1,500 binds of oats, at |2 30.00 Total 1,820.00 (Taken from November, 1863, to January, 1864, by General Johnson and Colonel Oliver, of the Fifteenth Michigan Regiment.) The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments ot counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from claimant's decedent, Meredith King, in Jackson County, Ala., stores and supplies as above set out, which were then and there reasonably worth the sum of seven hundred dollars ($700), for which no payment appears to have been made. ^ By the Court. Filed December 10, 1906. A true copy. . Test this 21st day of December, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. C. J. McKEE. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 6947. Estate of David B. Johnson v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the militarv forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that David B. Johnson, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Govern- ment of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed December 19, 1904. r Court of Claims. Congressional, No 6947. C. J. McKee, administrator of the estate of David B. Johnson, deceased, v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the militarv forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 21st day ot Feb- Qn'a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 19th day of December, 1904, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores or from whom they were alleged to have^been taken was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. . , n <, i j ^^ r^ i i one The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of December, 190b. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George H. Walker, esq., his assistant and under his dh-ection, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Morgan, State of Alabama; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of David B. Johnson, deceased, late of said county and State; that dur- ing the late civil war said decedent was a citizen of the United States, residing in ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIlSr CLAIMS. 23 said county and State; that during said war the United States military forces, under' proper authority, took from said decedent and converted to the use of the United States commissary stores and supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 27 boxes plug tobacco, 2,835 pounds, at |2 per pound $5, 770. 00 8 boxes twist tobacco, 200 pounds, at $1.50 per pound 300. 00 50 pounds of Java coffee, at 25 cents per pound 12. 50 1 box of medicines 600. 00 1 tierce rice, 600 pounds, at 16f cents per pound 100. 00 Total 6, 782. 50 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel for both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by the provost-marshal acting under orders of Major-General Stanley, took from the claimant's decedent in Morgan County, State of Alabama, property of the kind and character described in the petition, but whether the same was sold and the proceeds paid into the Treasury does not appear, nor does it appear whether same was used by the Army. The reasonable value of the property so seized was the sum of thirty-nine hundred dollars ($3,900), no part of which appears to have been paid. II. A claim for this property was presented to the Southern Claims Commission, but in 1879 rejected by said Commission, because they wei'e not satisfied that the property was seized for the use of the Army. The claim was presented to Congress and referred by the House of Representatives to this court on February 21, 1889, as aforesaid. By the Court. Filed December 24, 1906. A true copy. • Test this 4th day of January, 1907. [seal. J John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. LEWID F. MARTIN, ADMINISTRATOR OF FRANCIS C. MARTIN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 4852. Lewid F. Martin, executor of Francis C. Martin, deceased, V. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Francis C. Martin, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed May 20, 1895. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 4852. Lewid F. Martin, administrator of Francis C. Martin, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim of the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use dur- ing the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives, on the 10th day ot July, 1888. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 20th clay of May, 1895, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of October, 1907. Messrs. George A. & William B. King appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 24 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 1. That he is the administrator of Francis C. Martin, deceased. 2. That the following property belonging to said deceased was taken from him by the United States Army, and used by the said Army, the date, place, and command being particularly stated below. In Limestone County, in the State of Alabama, on or about the 1st of June, 1862: 1. 160 cords of wood $480 2. 160 pounds of bacon 20 3. 40 bushels potatoes 30 4. 1 mule and 1 horse 300 5. 8,000 pounds of fodder 120 6. 50 barrels corn 250 7. 1,000 pounds of bacon 250 8. 150 barrels corn 750 9. 1,000 pounds of bacon 250 10. 12,000 pounds of fodder 180 11. 1 mule and 1 horse 260 12. 6,000 rails 180 3,070 That a claim for said property was presented to the Southern Claims Commission, but was not allowed by said tribunal, the ground for said action being that it was considered that claimant was a bankrupt. 3. That the said claim has been presented to the Fiftieth Congress, and was by the House of Representatives of the said Fiftieth Congress referred to the Committee on War Claims of said House, by which committee it was on the 10th day of July, 1888, referred to this court for a finding of the facts in accordance with section 1 of an act approved March 3, 1883, entitled "An act to afford assistance and relief to Congress and the Executive Departments in the investigation of claims and demands against the Government." The com-t, after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP PACT. Dming the late civil war the military forces of the United States, l)y proper authority for the use of the Army, took from claimant's decedent in Limestone County, in the State of Alabama, property of the kind and character above mentioned, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of nine hundred and twenty-five dollars ($925). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court." . Filed October 28, 1907. A true copy. Test this 21st day of January, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. J. G. MASON, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7004. Estate of John R. Mason, deceased, v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the relDellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, linds that John O. Mason, one of the persons alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed November 2, 1903. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7004. Glorvinia Mason v. The United States.] This case, l^eing a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the LTnited States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rel)cllion. the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Glorvinia Mason, the penson alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have lieen taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed April 5, 1905. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAUsT CLAIMS. 25 [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7004. J. G. Mason, administrator of the estate of Glorvinia Mason and John O. Mason, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rel^ellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on February 23, 1889. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on November 2, 1903, and April 5, 1905, found claimant's decedents, John O. Mason and Glorvinia Mason, to have been loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war, the case being dismissed as to the interest of Robert B. Mason. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 9th day of November, A. D. 1905. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Philip A. Ashford, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States.. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations, to wit: That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Limestone, State of Alabama; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estates of Glorvinia Mason and of John 0. Mason, deceased, late of said county and State; that during the late civil war said decedents resided in said county and State; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedents, Glorvinia Mason and John O. Mason, and their coowner, Robert B. Mason, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit, in which said Glorvinia Mason and said John O. Mason each owned an undivided one-third interest : 28 mules, at |150 each |4, 200. 00 1 mare 150. 00 1 mare 125. 00 1,227 bushels of corn, at 70 cents per bushel 858. 90 9,000 pounds of fodder 135. 00 100 head of hogs, 20,000 pounds, at 12 cents per pound 2, 400. 00 75 head of sheep, at $2 per head 150. 00 50,000 rails, 500 cords, at $3 per cord 1, 500. 00 3,000 pounds of bacon, at 25 cents per pound 750. 00 Total 10, 268. 90 The undivided two-thirds interest of petitioner's decedents in said property so taken amounting to 16,845.90. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority ^ took from the claimant's decedents, Glorvinia Mason and John 0. Mason, and their coowner, Robert B. Mason, in Limestone County, State of Alabama, property as above described, which, at the time and place of taking, was reasonably worth the sum of five thousand nine hun- dred and eighty-five dollars (|5,985), no part of which appears to have been paid for. The undivided two-thirds interest of said decedents, Glorvinia Mason and John O. Mason, in the property so taken amounts to three thousand nine hundred and ninety dollars ($3,990), belonging in equal shares to each of said decedents. II. The claim of Robert B. Mason, deceased, is not before the court, he having been heretofore found not loyal and the claim as to him dismissed. By the Court. Filed January 29, 1906. A true copy. Test this 9th day of February, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. J. W. MITCHELL, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 7082. J. W. Mitchell, administrator of the estate of Thomas J. MitcheU, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 26 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 26th day of Feb- ruary, 1889. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 17th day of March, 1902, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 20th day of February, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United StaJ^.P9. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Jackson County, State of Ala- bama, where his decedent resided during the late war of the rebellion; that at differ- ent times during said period the military forces of the United States, by proper author- ity, took from his decedent quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $494 and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows: 270 bushels of corn, at 75 cents._ ._ $202. 50 (Taken in August, 1863, by Lieutenant Williams, of Company G, Seventy- seventh Indiana Regiment Mounted Infantry.) 1 horse 100. 00 (Taken November 6, 1863, by Colonel Oliver, Fifteenth Michigan Regi- ment.) 46 bushels of corn, at 75 cents 34. 50 (Taken December, 1863, by Sixth Iowa and Fifteenth Michigan regim^ents.) Taking care of wounded soldier, 5 weeks 100. 00 75 bundles of fodder 2. 00 3 head of hogs, 450 pounds, at 10 cents 45. 00 1 fire stove 10. 00 (Taken in December, 1864, by Second Tennessee and Twelfth Indiana regi- ments Volunteers.) Total 494.00 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in the county of Jackson, State of Alabama, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States for the use of the Army, property of the kind above described which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and ninety- nine dollars ($299), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed March 20, 1905. A true copy. Test this 3d day of June, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JAMES A. PAULK. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11852. James A. Paulk v. The United States.] statement op case. The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Senate of the United States, by resolution, on the 3d day of March, 1905, under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. The case was Ijrought to a hearing on its merits on the 16th day of January, 1906. Ralston & Siddons, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by P. M. Ashford, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Bidlock County, Ala. ; that throughout the war of the rebellion he was loyal to the United States and gave no aid or comfort to the rebellion. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 27 That he was born on August 2, 1849, and was under 16 years of agewhen said war terminated. That he was during said war an orphan, his father having died in the year 1852 and his mother in the year 1861. That in the latter part of April, 1865, a command of General Wilson, known as Grierson's cavalry, took from the claimant at his plantation, 7 miles southeast of Union Springs, in what is now Bullock County, Ala., the following stores and supplies: 16 mules, at $200 |3, 200 2 horses, at $150 300 1 buggy 50 1 carriage 100 4 wagons 100 5,000 pounds meat, at 20 cents 1, 500 1,000 bushels corn, at $1 1, 000 16 oxen, at $100 1, 600 20 hogs 100 2 saddles 30 18 bridles , 36 15 bales of cotton 1, 500 Total 9, 516 That the claimant was the sole owner of said property, none of which was ever returned or paid for; that no vouchers or receipts were given therefor; that claimant has never assigned or transferred this claim, and is now entitled to recover the amount thereof. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war of the rebellion. II. There was taken from the claimant, in what is now Bullock County, State of Alabama, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character described in the petition, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth tne sum of three ^lousand three hundred and ninety dollars ($3,390), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. A claim was never presented to any Department or officer of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. It is shown in evidence that the claimant was a minor at the time of the taking of the property, he being but 16 years of age at the close of the war. By the Court. Filed January 29, 1906. A true copy. Test this 1st day of February, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. J. B. ROBERSON, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional Case No. 11224. J. B. Roberson, administrator, with will annexed, of John P. Roberson, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the House of Representatives under the Tucker Act on the 18th day of March, 1903. The case was brought to hearing on its merits on the 12th day of April, 1906. C. M. Shelley, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by F. DeC. Faust, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegation: I. That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the State of Alabama, and is the executor of the last will and testament of John P. Roberson, deceased, who in, his lifetime was a citizen of the United States and resided in St. Clair County, Ala. 28 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. II. That during ttie years from 1861 to 1865, inclusive, soldiers of the United States operating against the Confederate forces took from the farm of said John P. Roberson, St. Clair County, Ala., and appropriated to the use of the armies of the United States the following stores and supplies of the value set opposite each item: 1 stallion $1, 000. 00 5 mules 500 00 4 horses 525. 00 750 pounds of bacon 112. 50 800 pounds of fioiu-. : 36. 00 200 bushels of corn 200. 00 III. Petitioner does not know what commands or regiments the said soldiers be- longed to who took said property. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant's decedent was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, in St. Clair County, State of Alabama, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from the claimant's decedent property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of one thousand two hundred and thirty dollars (|1,230), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed April 23, 1906. A true copy. Test this 12th day of December, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerlz Court of Claims. CHARLES O. ROLFE, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 4060. Estate of Oscar O. Rolfe, deceased, v. Tlie United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fxurnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Oscar 0. Rolfe, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed May 31, 1904. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 4060. Charles O. Rolle, administrator of the estate of Oscar A. Kolfe, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to ^he military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the su]Dpression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 20th day of April, 1888. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 31st day of May, 1904, found that the person alleged to have f mniished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States thi'oughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 14th day of May, 1906. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of Morgan, State of Alabama; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of Oscar A. Rolfe, deceased; that during the late civil war said decedent was a citizen of the United States, residing in the county of Morgan, State of Alabama; that ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 29 during the late civil war the United States military forces, acting under proper author- ity, took from said decedent and converted to the use of the United States Army quar- termaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: Taken from summer of 1862 until spring of 1864, from plantation of decedent, near Decatur, Ala., by troops under command of General Mitchell, General Grainger, Gen- eral Sprague, and Captain Wade, including the One hundred and sixth Colored Infan- try, Sixty-third Ohio Infantry, Eighteenth Michigan Infantry, and a Zouave regiment: 100 panels of rails §20. 00 Stable 39. 75 Kitchen floor 11. 20 Storehouse 21. 60 Double cabin 101. 00 Wagon and saws 165. 00 8, 000 pounds of pork, at 8 cents per pound 640. 00 5,000 pounds of bacon, at 25 cents per pound 1, 250. 00 1 fine bay mare, 6 years old 200. 00 200 pounds of sugar, at 10 cents per pound 20. 00 40 gallons of molasses, at $1 per gallon 40. 00 8 barrels of salt, at |3 per barrel 24. 00 2,500 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel : 2, 500. 00 372 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel 372. 00 16,500 pounds of beef, at 5 cents per pound 825. 00 5,000 pounds of fodder, at 2 cents per pound 100. 00 16,500 pounds of beef, at 5 cents per pound 825. 00 Total 7, 154. 55 The com't, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Morgan County, State of Ala- bama, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the militaiy forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, stores and supplies of the kind and char- acter above described, which were then and there reasonably worth the sum of two thousand nine hundred and eighty dollars (|2,980.00), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed May 21, 1906. A true copy. Test this 1st day of December, 1906. [seal.] " John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JAMES M. THOMASON. [Court ol Claims. Congressiona], No. 5888. James M. Thomason v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that James M. Thomason, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Govermnent of the United*States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed December 12, 1904. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5888. James M. Thompson v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the IJnited States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 6th day of August, 1888. On a preliminary inquiry the court on the 12th day of December, 1904, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. 30 ALJ.OWAISrCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of May, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he resides in Colbert County, State of Alabama, and is the original owner of this claim, and was the owner and possessor at the times hereinafter stated of the following stores and supplies taken for the military use of the United States at or near the town of Barton, in the county of Colbert, and State of Alabama, that is to say. 1 gray horse 1125 1 bay horse 150 1 chestnut-sorrel mare 125 1 black mule 150 8 beef cattle, at $20 160 30 hogs, at $6 180 100 bushels of corn, at |1 100 500 pounds of bacon, at 25 cents 125 Total 1, 115 (Taken April 1, 1863, by the commands of Colonel Straight and General Dodge.) The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. There was taken from the claimant, in the county of Colbert, State of Alabama, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States for the use of the Army, by proper authority, stores and supplies of the kind and character above described, which were then and there reasonably worth the sum of six hun- dred and eighty-five dollars ($685), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed May 14, 1906. A true copy. Test this 23d day of May, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. CECILIA R. A. WHEAT, EXECUTRIX OF MOSES K. WHEAT. [Court of Claims. C. R. A. Wheat, administratrix of Moses K. Wheat, deceased, v. The United States. Congressional, No. 4061.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Moses K. Wheat, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed February 25, 1907. [Court of Claims, Congressional case No. 4061. Mrs. Cecilia R. A. Wheat, executrix of Moses IC. Wheat, deceased, v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use dur- ing the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court bj^ the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 20th day of April, 1888. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 25th day of February, 1907, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 9th day of January, 1908. Moyers and Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 31 The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in the county of Macon, State of Alabama; that she is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting executrix of the last will and testament of Moses K. Wlieat, deceased, late of said county and State; that during the civil war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent, for use of the Army, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: Taken about April 14, 15, and 16, 1865: 14 mules, at $155 each $2, 170. 00 6 horses 950. 00 3,000 bushels corn, at $1.50 per bushel 4, 500. 00 10 tons fodder, at $30 per ton 300. 00 1,500 pounds bacon, at 20 cents per pound 300. 00 Buggy and harness used for sick officer 125. 00 6 barrels flour, at $12 per barrel 72. 00 300 pounds lard 75. 00 200 pounds sugar 40. 00 100 yards osnaburgs 35. 00 Total 8, 567. 00 The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDING OF FACT. During the late civil war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from claimant's decedent, Moses K. Wheat, in the county of Macon, State of Alabama, for use of the Army, stores and supplies of kinds mentioned in the petition, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of four thousand eight hundred and ninety dollars ($4,890). No payment appears to have been made for said property or any part thereof. By the Court. Filed January 13, 1908. A true copy. Test this 18th day of January, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ARKANSAS. JOHN W. BEAN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11303. John W. Bean y. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminarj^ in- quiry, finds that John W. Bean, the person alleged to have furnished such sup- plies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed October 31, 1901. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11303. John W. Bean v. The United States.] statement OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 4th day of March, 1904. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 31st day of October, 1904, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 32 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. The case was brought to a hearing ou its merits on the 22cl day of March, 1905. Henry M. Foote, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George H. Walker, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the State of Arkansas, where he resided during the war of the rebellion ; that at different times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from him quar- termaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $520 and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows : 1 yoke of steers, good beef cattle $50. 00 1 yoke of steers, good beef cattle 75.00 1 horse, 4 years old 45.00 200 bushels wheat, $1 per bushel 200.00 300 bushels corn, 50 cents per bushel 150.00 Total 520. 00 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OF FACTS. 1. There was taken from the claimant in Washington County, State of Arkan- sas, during the war for the supjtression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property as above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and ninety dollars ($290). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed April 10, 1905. A true copy. Test this 11th day of January, A. D. 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOSEPH H. BEAN, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOSEPH BEAN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8339. Joseph Bean v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been talven by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Joseph Bean, the person alleged to have furnished such sup- plies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed December 19, 1904. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 8339. Joseph N. Bean, administrator of estate of Joseph Bean, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for tlicir use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by tlae Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 2d day of March. 1891. On the preliminary inquiry the court, on the 19th day of December, 1904, found that the person alleged to have fui-nished the supplies or stores, or from wh(im they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits ou the 19th day of February, 1907. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Mal- colm A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIlsr CLAIMS. 33 The claimant in his petition maltes the following allegations : That he is a citi'zen of the United States and a resident of the county of Nevada, State of Arl^ansas ; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of Joseph Bean, deceased, late of said county and State. That during the late civil war said decedent was a citizen of the United States, residing in said county of Nevada, State of Arkansas ; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent and converted to the use of the United States Army, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and A^alues below stated, to wit : Taken from farm of decedent in Nevada County, Ark., by troops under command of General Thayer, of General Steele's army, in April, 1864: 5 horses, at $135 each $675,00 25 hogs, 160 pounds each, 124 cents per pound 500. 00 1,150 pounds of flour (5| barrels), at $12 per barrel 69. 00 18 bushels of wheat, at $1.50 per bushel 27. 00 2,200 pounds of bacon, at 18 cents per pound 396. 00 25 gallons of molasses, at 90 cents per gallon 22. 50 1,500 bundles of fodder, at 2 cents each 30. 00 Total 1, 719. 50 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT, There was taken from the claimant's decfedent in Nevada County, State of Arkansas, by the military forces of the United States, during the late civil war, for the use of the Army, property as above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably, worth the sum of six hundred and forty-eight dollars ($648). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed February 25, 1907. A true copy. Test this 7th day of January, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. WILLIAM A. BETHEL, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8556. Oliver P. Lister and Martha Harrison v. The United States.] This case, being a' claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Oliver P. Lister and Martha Harrison, the persons alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, were loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed April 18, 1898. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 8556. William A. Bethel, administrator of the estate of Martha Harrison, deceased, and Oliver P. Lister v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 16th day of February, 1892, H. Kep. 543, 60-1 3 34 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. On a prelimiuarj' inquiry tlie court, on the IStli day of April, 1S9S, found the claimants herein, the persons alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, were loyal to the Govern- ment of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 2d day of December, A. D. 1905. Cyrus Snyder, esq., appeared for claimant (Moyers & Consaul, of counsel), and the Attorney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States, The original claimants in their petition make the following allegations : That they were during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion citi- zens of the United States, residing in Jefferson County, Ark. ; that at different times during said period the United States military forces, by proper authority, took from them quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $1,900 and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows, to wit : Taken from claimant's premises, near Pine Bluff, Ark., about November, 1863 : 1,200 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel $1, 200 25 head of cattle, at $20 each ; 500 1 mule 150 2,000 bundles of fodder, at $2.50 per hundred 50 Total 1, 900 The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following findijstg of facts. There was taken from the claimant, Oliver P. Lister, and from the decedent, Martha Harrison, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, of which the claimants herein were the owners of two-fifths, the reasonable value of said two-fifths of said property at the time and place of taking being the sum of three hundred and ninety-nine dollars ($399), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed December 11, 1905. A true copy. Test this 24th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. SARAH BREWER. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5108. Estate of John Brawer, deceased, v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary in- quiry, finds that John Brewer, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the said war. By the Coubt. Filed January IS, 1904. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5108. Sarah Bre-^-er, widow and sole heir of John Brewer, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 10th day of July, 1888. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIlSr CLAIMS. 35 On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 18th day of January, 1904, found fliat the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of October, 1906. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Hon. J. A. Van Orsdel, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the de- fense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : That she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Washington County, State of Arkansas ; that she is the widow and heir of John Brewer, de- ceased, late of said county and State ; that during the late civil war said dece- dent resided in the county of Madison, State of Arkansas, and was a citizen of the United States ; that during said war the United States military forces, vmder proper authority, took from said decedent and converted to the use of the United States Army, quartermaster stores and supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit : 140 bushels of corn $120.00 SO bushels of corn 64.00 75 bushels of oats 45.00 1 mare 100. 00 Total 329.00 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. During the late civil war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from petitioner's decedent, John Brewer, in Madison County, Ark., quartermaster stores of the kinds described in the petition, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and thirty-two dollars ($232). No payment appears to have been made for said property or any part thereof. II. The petitioner, Sarah Brewer, is shown by the evidence to be the widow and sole heir and representative of said John Brewer, deceased. By the Couet. Filed November 12, 1906. A true copy. Test this 12th day of December, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. J. M. DERREBBRRY, ADMINISTRATOR OF SAMUEL B. DERREBERRY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5187. Estate of Samuel B. Derreberry, deceased. V. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Samuel B. Derreberry, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed October 27, 1902. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5187. J. M. Derreberry, administrator of Samuel B. Derreberry, deceased, v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 10th day of July, ISSS. 86 ALLOWANCE OP CEKTAUST CLAIMS. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on tlie 27tli day of October, 1902, found that the person alleged to liave furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of November, 1905. George A. & William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the At- torney-General, by F; De C. Faust, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : I. That he is the administrator of Samuel B. Derreberry, claimant's decedent, and was appointed on the 19th day of January, 1903, by the probate court in and for the county of Benton, State of Arkansas ; that said decedent was during the late war a resident of the State of Arkansas, and did not give any aid or comfort to the said rebellion during the civil war, but was throughout that war loyal to the Government of the United States. II. That the following property belonging to the claimant's decedent was taken from him by the United States Army, the date, place, and command being particularly stated below : In Benton County, State of Arkansas, on or about the 5th of November, 1862, the forces of the United States, namely, Blunt's brigade, to wit : 640 bushels of corn $640 8 pork hogs 12S 1 horse 150 15 sheep 30 8 cattle 80 20 stock hogs 60 7,000 rails and coal wood 350 1 lot of poultry . 5 Total 1. 443 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OF FACT. There was taken from the claimant's decedent in Benton County, State of Arkansas, 'during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, prop- erty as above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of seven hundred and iifteen dollars ($715). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed November 13, 1905. A true copy. Test this 8th day of February, 1906. [SEAL ] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. J. H. DUKE, ADMINISTRATOR OF EDMUND F. DUKE. r Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9250. Estate of Edmimd F. Duke, deceased, v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Edmund F. Duke, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the CotJET. Filed October 29, 1906. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 87 [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9250. J. H. Duke, administrator of the estate of Kdmund F. Duke, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in tlie above-eutitled case for supplies or stores alleged to bave been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 13th day of March, 1894. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 29th day of October, 1906, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores or from whom they were alleged to have been taken was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 9th day of December, 1907. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George E. Boren, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the county of Madison, State of Tennessee ; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting admin- istrator of the estate of Edmund F. Duke, deceased, late of the county of McNairy, State of Tennessee. That during the late civil war said Edmund F. Duke was the owner of cer- tain property in the county of Prairie, State of Arkansas, and that during said war there was taken from said decedent, for the use of the United States Army, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit : Taken about November, 1863, from the farm of said decedent near Du- valls Bluff, Arkansas^ by the One hundred and tweutj'-sixth Illinois Infantry : 2,500 bushels of corn, at $1 per busheU $2, 500 128 stacks of hay 1,280 158 head of beef cattle, at $20 each 3,160 18 head of horses and mules, at $150 each 2, 700 28 head of pork hogs, at $10 each 280 21 head of goats, at $2 per head 42 300 bushels sweet potatoes 300 200 bushels Irish potatoes 200 Total 10,462 The court, upon the evidence and after considring the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. During the late civil war there was taken from claimant's decedent, Ed- mund F. Duke, by United States military forces, under proper authority, in the county of Prairie, State of Arkansas, quartermaster stores and commissary sup- plies of the kinds mentioned in the petition, which were then and there reason- ably worth the sum of three thousand seven hundred and five dollars ($3,705), no part of which appears to have been paid. By the Court. A true copy. Test this 14th day of January, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SAM EDMONDSON, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10511. Estate of Isaac T. Eppler, deceased, v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, 38 allowajstce of ceetatn claims. finds that Isaac T, Eppler (deceased), tlie person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Coubt. Filed April 11, 1904. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10511. Sam Edmondson, administrator Isaac T. Eppler, deceased, v. Tlie United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores, alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Eepresentatives, on the 4th day of March, 1902. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 11th day of April, 1904, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 24th day of October, 1904. Henry M. Foote, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Charles F. Kinc"heloe, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant, in his petition, makes the following allegations : That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the State of Arkansas; that he is the duly appointed administrator of the estate of Isaac T. Eppler, deceased, who resided during the late civil war in the State of Arkansas ; that at different times during said period the United States forces, by proper author- ity, took from decedent quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $4,685, and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows : 1863. Sept. 1. One wagon $100 Three yoke of cattle - 225 Oct. 1. Two hundred bushels of corn 200 Ten tons of hay 300 Two thousand bundles of fodder 60 Forty-four cattle 880 Three yoke of sl;eers : 225 1864. June 1. Thirteen cattle 325 Two hundred and thirty-seven hogs 2, 370 Total 4, 685 The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OF FACTS. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Sebastian County, State of Arkansas, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reasonal)ly worth the sum of two thousand two hundred and five dollars ($2,205), for which no payment appears to have been made. P.T THE Court. Filed February 13, 1905. A true copv. Test this 11th day of January, A. D. 1906. [seal.] John Randolph. Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIISr CLAIMS. 39 WILLIAM H. ENGLES. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9542. William H. Engles v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary in- quiry, finds that William H. Engles, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to ha^-e been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Coxjet. Filed January 23, 1905. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9542. William H. Engles v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Represeuatives, Bowman Act, on the 2d day of February, 1897. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 23d day of January, 1905, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 12th day of March, 1906. Shelley & Martin, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George H. Walker, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : I. That he is a citizen of the United States and resides in the State of Arkan- sas, and was loyal to the United States throughout the rebellion. II. That during the year 1S65 soldiers of the United States operating against the Confederate forces in the State of Arkansas, took from the farm of claimant in Washington County, Ark., and appropriated to the use of the armies of the United States the property shown by the following schedule, with the value set opposite to each item : Eight hundred bushels of wheat $1, 600 Two hundred bushels of corn 200 Four tons of hay 100 One mule 200 Two horses 200 One wagon 150 Total 2,450 Petitioner alleges that said property was taken by troops under the com- mand Of General Herron and General Blunt, that the officer immediately in com- mand when the said wagon was taken was Lieut. James H. Wilson, First Arkansas Volunteer Cavalry, and he does not know who were the oflicers imme- diately in command when the other property was taken. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. There was taken from claimant, William H. Engles, in Washington County, Ark., by the military forces of the United States during the war for the sup- pression of the rebellion, by proper authority, property as above described, which at the time of taking was reasonably worth the sum of one thousand five hundred and ten dollars ($1,510). It does not appear that any payment has been made for any part thereof. By the Court. Filed March 19, 1906. A true copy. Test this 9th day of April, 1906. [SEAL.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 40 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. RICHARD D. LAMB, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7797. Richard D. Lamb, for himself and as ad- ministrator of Ira M. Lamb, heirs of Ira M. Lamb and Caroline, his wife, v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnistied to tlie military forces of tlie United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Richard D. Lamb and Ira M. Lamb, the persons alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, were loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Couet. Filed April 2, 1906. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7797. Richard D. Lamb et al. v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary in- quiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Caroline Lamb, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war, and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction. Filed April 2, 1906. By the Court. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7797. Richard D. Lamb, for himself and as admin- istrator of Ira M. Lamb, heirs of Ira M. Lamb and Caroline, his wife, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court bv the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 5th day of June, 1900. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 2d day of April, 1006, fouud that the persons, Richard D. and Ira M. Lamb, alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, were loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war, and that Caroline Lamb (deceased) was not loyal. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 29th day of March, 1906. George A. and William H. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attor- ney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, es^., his assistant and under his direc- tion, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: I. The claimant, Richard D. Lamb, is a resident of Philips County, Ark., and a citizen of the United States; that Ira M. Lamb, jv., departed this life in August. 1SS9 ; that on January 20, 1891, he was appointed administrator of the estate of said Ira M. Lamb, jr., as will appear from certified copy of letters of administration filed in this court; that the said Richard D. Lamb is the only surviving child of the said Ira M. Lamb, sr., and Caroline, his wife. II. The original claimant, Ira M. Lamb, died on or about October 31, 1862, the said property having been taken in part prior thereto; that said original claim- ant died leaving his widow Caroline and three children, of whom the said Rich- ard D. Lamb is now the only survivor, Caroline Lamb, the wife.having died since said claim was presented to the Southern Claims Commission, Carrie Lamb, one of the children, having died in 1867, and Ira M. Lamb, jr., having died in 1SS9; that a iiart of said property was taken after the death of said Ira M. Lamb, sr., and this claimant, in his own right and aS administrator of Ira M. Lamb, jr., is entitled to the same: that the said children were all minors under the age of 21 years at the time said property was taken, Richard D. Lamb, the oldest, being ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 41 only 13 years old at the time, and did not give aid or comfort to tlie rebellion, but were loyal to the United States Government throughout the war. III. That at the time the property was taken as claimed, the said Caroline Lamb was the owner of the plantation from which the same was taken, except SO acres, which was owned by said Ira M. Lamb ; but that said plantation was, by and with the consent of said Caroline, operated and cultivated by the said Ira M., who was entitled to the produce thereof, and that the same was taken from them by and for the use of the United States Army, to wit : 3,000 bushels corn in crib $3, 000 1,000 bushels corn in field 500 10 tons hay 200 47,000 rails 2, 348 10 acres timber 500 8 mules 1, 400 6 mares 1, 050 14 young horses and mules 1, 050 30 cattle 1, 050 100 hogs 1, 050 40,000 feet lumber 1,200 40,000 bricks 400 1,300 pounds of bacon 195 40 acres green corn 480 Board and care of sick soldiers 468 Total 14, 891 The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OF FACT. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion there was taken from Richard D. Lamb and Ira M. Lamb, jr., heirs of Ira M. Lamb, sr., and from Caroline Lamb, wife of Ira M. Lamb, sr., deceased, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property as above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of three thousand two hundred fifty dollars ($3,250), Richard D. Lamb, for himself and as admin- istrator of Ira M. Lamb, jr., being entitled to two thousand one hundred and sixty-six dollars and sixty-seven cents ($2,166.67) as the two-thirds share of himself and Ira M. Lamb, jr., deceased. By THE Court. Filed April 2, 1906. A true copy. Test this 19th day of May, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11295. Estate of Mary Lefevre, deceased, i>. The United States.] THE UNION TRUST COMPANY, ADMINISTRATOR. This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Mary Lefevre, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal- to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed December 19, 1904. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11295. The Union Trust Company, admin- istrator of the estate of Mary Lefevre, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their 42 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN" CLAIMS. use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 4th day of March, 1904. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 19th day of December, 1904, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of March, 1905. Henry M. Foote, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in the State of Arkansas, and is the administratrix of the estate of Mary Lefevre, deceased, who resided during the late war near Little Rock, Pulaski County, in said State ; that on or about the 12th day of September, 1863, in the county aforesaid, the United States forces, by proper authority, took from decedent quartermaster stores and com- missary supplies of the value of $11,617 and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows : 40 head of horses, $100 per head $4, 000. 00 40 head of beef cattle, $12 per head 4S0. 00 50 head of hogs, $7.50 per head 362. 00 11 head of sheep, $2.50 per head 27.50 142 acres corn, 40 bushels per acre, $1 per bushel_I 5, 680.00 38 tons hay in stack, $30 per ton 540.00 4 acres potatoes, 50 bushels per acre, $1 per bushel 200. 00 2,000 pounds bacon, 12J cents per pound 250.00 60 gallons molasses, 50 cents per gallon 30. 00 150 pounds sugar, 25 cents per pound . 37.00 2 barrels salt, $5 per barrel 10.00 Total 11, 617. 00 The court, vipon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. There was talven from the claimant's decedent, in the county of Pulaski, State of Arkansas, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of five thousand eight hundred and forty-two dollars ($5,842). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed April 5, 1905. A true copy. Test this 11th day of January, A. D. 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOHN B. LUTTRELL. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10451. John B. Luttrell r. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that John B. Luttrell, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed December 4, 1905. ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 43 [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10451. John B. Luttrell v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. Tlie claim in the aboAe-eutitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of January, 1902. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 4th day of December, 1905, found that the per.son alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 15th day of May, 1905. Henry M. Foote, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the de- fense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant, in his petition, makes the following allegations : That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Eldridge, Howard County, Ark. ; that at different times during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the United States forces, by proper authority, took from him quarter- master stores and commissary supplies of the value of $587.60, and appropri- ated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows : By officers and soldiers under command of General Smith, belonging to the Fourth Missouri and Seventh Illinois Volunteers : 1 bay horse mule, value $150.00 1 sorrel mare mule, value 150.00 175 bushels corn, value 175.00 580 binds of fodder, value 11.60 600 pounds of bacon, value 75.00 7 bed blankets, value 21.00 Sundry cooking vessels, value 5.00 Total 587. 60 (Taken about the 17th day of January, 1864.) The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OF FACT. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Armj% took from claimant in Howard County, State of Arkansas, property as above des^icribed, which, at the time and place of taking, was reasonably worth the sum of four hundred and eighty dollars ($480). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By thf, Court. Filed December 4, 1905. A true copy. Test this 11th day of January, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph. Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. HEIRS OF BURNS POLK, SR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7669. Burns Polk v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that said Burns Polk, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed December 15, 1890. 44 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7669. Maria Polk .Johnston, James Polk, and Burns Polk, jr., heirs of Burns Polk, sr., deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim iu the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 2Sth day of April, 1S90. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 15th day of Deeeinber, 1S90, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 29th day of January, 1907. Moyers & Cousaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make the following allegations : That petitioners Maria Polk Johnston and James Polk are citizens of the United States, residing in the county of Lee, State of Arkansas; that peti- tioner Burns Polk is a citizen of the United States, residing in the county of Hardeman, State of Tennessee; that petitioners are the children and only heirs of Burns Polk, sr., deceased, late of the county of Phillips, State of Arkansas. That said Burns Polk, sr., was during the late civil war a colored man and a slave until freed, and resided in the coimty of Phillips, State of Arkansas; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent for use of the army quartermaster stores and sup- plies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit : Taken in summer of 1S62 by order of General Curtis near Marianna, Ark., 3 mules, at $200 each $600. 00 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT, I. Claimants' decedent, Burns Polk, was during the late civil war a slave, being the property of Jackson Polk, and remained loyal to the Government of the United States during said war. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion Jackson Polk, who resided in Phillips County, State of Arkansas, and the master of the deceased claimant herein, Burns Polk, was the owner of the property described in the petition, and on the approach of the Federal forces he gave the same to the claimant, telling him that he could claim it as his own and get out of it all he could for himself. Soon thereafter the military forces of the United States took possession of said property for military purposes, the reasonable value of which at the time and place of taking was the sum of three hundred dollars ($300), no part of which appears to have been paid. By the Court. Filed February 4, 1907. A true copy. Test this Sth day of February, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. MANURVIA J. SPAKE, FORMERLY MANURVIA J. ROSS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11290. Minerva Jane Spake, late Minerva Jane Ross, V. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of tlie rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Minerva Jane Spake, late Minerva Jane Ross, the person alleged to ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 45 have fiu'uislied such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11290. Manurvia J. Spake, formerly Manur- vla .1. Ross, V. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 4th day of March, 1904. On a preliminary inquiry, the court, on the 19th day of December, 1904, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of November, 1905. Henry M. Foote, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant, in her petition, makes the following allegations : That she is a citizen of the United States, residing at North Point, Pulaski County, State- of Ai-kansas; that she resided near Clarksville, Johnson County Ark., during the late war of the rebellion ; that at different times during said war the United States forces, by proper authoritj', took from her quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $1,990 and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows : 4,400 pounds beef (11 head of cows, 400 pounds each), 5 cents . $220 7,500 pounds pork (50 hogs, 150 pounds each), 10 cents per pound 750 1 extra fine stable horse 700 1 extra fine blooded mare 200 50 bushels corn, at $1 per bushel 50 20 bushels wheat, at $2 per bushel 40 60 pounds tobacco, at 50 cents per jjound 30 Total 1, 990 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel of the respective parties, makes the following FINDING OP FACTS. There was taken from the claimant, in Johnson County, State of Arkansas, during the war for the supression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of seven hundred and eighty dollars ($780), for which no payment appears to have been made. No allowance is made for the tobacco charged in the petition. By the Court. Filed December 4, 1905. A true copy. Test this 11th day of January, 1906. [SEAL.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. WILLIAM B. RUTHERFORD. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11314. William B. Rutherford v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 46 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. late war for tlie suppression of the rebellion, tlie court, on a preliminary in- quiry, finds that William B. Eutlierford, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed December 5, 1904. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11314. William B. Rutherford v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 4th day of March, 1904. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 5th day of December, 1904, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government qf the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of March, 1905. Henry M. Foote, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George H. Walker, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the State* of Arkansas, where he resided during the late war of the rebellion. That at different times during said period the United States forces, b5^ proper authority, took from him quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $1,213.75, and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows : 300 bushels corn, at 50 cents per bushel $150. 00 1 ton hay 20.00 500 bundles oats, at $2 per hundred bundles 10. 00 40 head of hogs, 100 pounds each, 10 cents per pound 400. 00 2 horses, $150 each 300. 00 1 mare _' 150. 00 100 bushels corn, at $1 per bushel 100. 00 1 ton hay 20.00 100 pounds flour 10. 00 500 pounds beef, at S cents 40. 00 100 bushels oats 2. 00 172 bushels corn, at 50 cents 9.25 Total 1, 211. 25 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OF FACTS. There was taken from the claimant, in the county of Washington, State of Ar- kansas, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of eight hundred and ninety dollars ($890) for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed April 5, 1905. A true copy. Test this 11th day of January, A. D. 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIlsr CLAIMS. 47 JOHN T. SIFFORD, EXECUTOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 1733. Estate of William T. Stone, deceased, v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that William T. Stone, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores or from vphom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed April 10, 1905. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 1733. John T. Sifford, executor of the estate of William T. Stone, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 27th day of February, 1887. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 10th day of April, 1905, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 20th day of November, 1905. Henry M. Foote, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : That his decedent, William T. Stone, was a citizen of the United States, residing at Camden, Ouachita County, State of Arkansas, where he resided during the late war of the rebellion ; that at different times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from said decedent, William T. Stone, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies to the value of $4,875.10 and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows : 1,200 bushels corn $1, 800 10,000 pounds fodder 150 3,000 pounds bacon 540 4 mules 540 2 horses 270 100 sheep 300 60 cattle 1/200 50 bushels wheat '. 75 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argumtots of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OF FACT. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Ouchita County, State of Arkansas, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of two thousand six hundred and forty dollars ($2,640), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed December 4, 1905. A true copy. Test this 11th day of January, 1906. ' [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims^ 48 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. CALIPORNIA. WILFORD CUBBAGE. [In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10658. Wilford Cubbage v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case vpas brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of January, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and -the Attorney- General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of San Bernardino, in the State of California. 2. That he, being a corporal and afterwards first sergeant of Company D, Seventy-eighth Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Illinois as first lieutenant thereof on September 1, 1864 ; and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until November 30, 1864, when he was mustered in as such ; said regiment was continuously below the mini- mum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of first lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- ances of a corporal and of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of first lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Wilford Cubbage, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of San Bernardino, in the State of California. 2. On September 1, 1864, the said Wilford Cubbage was a corporal of Com- pany D, Seventy-eighth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on November 30, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by Gen- eral Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The first lieutenant of said Company D, Seventy-eighth ' Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry, from and after September 2, 1864, out of service in said grade, the duties of first lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of first lieutenant of said Company D, Seventy-eighth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry, until Novem- ber 30, 1864, when he was duly mustered as such. The governor of the State of Illinois also issued to this claimant a commis- sion as first lieutenant Company D, Seventy-eighth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said September 2, 1864, the mustering ofiicer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as first lieutenant of said Company D, Seventy- eighth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of first lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such aforesaid. 4. During a portion of the period aforesaid, to wit, from November 20, 1864, to November 30, 3864, this claimant employed a servant not enlisted. 5. During said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Gov- ernment. 6. If the said Wilford Cubbage should be deemed first lieutenant of Com- pany D, Seventy-eighth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a ALLOWANCE OF CERTAHsT CLAIMS. 49 corporal and first sergeant, wliicli he has received, aud that of a first lieuten- ant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from September 2, 1864, to November 30, 1S64, would amount to $137.42 with- out any deduction being made for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 7. Income tax would amount to $5.72, and, if to be deducted, would leave $131.70 (one hundred and thirty-one dollars and seventy cents). By the Court. Filed January 8, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 17th day of January, 1906. [SEAL.] John Randolph, AsHstcDif Clerk Court of Claims. ANDREW J. GUILFORD. .[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10692. Andrew .T. Guilford v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13tli day of November, 1905. Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by James A. Turner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the followii;g allegations : 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Alameda, in the State of California. 2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company F, Eleventh Regiment Michigan Volunteer Cavalry, was duly appointed or eonmiissioned by the gov- ernor of the State of Michigan as second lieutenant thereof on December 18, 1864, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until April 23, 1865, when he was mustered in as second lieutenant. Said regiment was continuously below the minimum number pre- scribed by law and regulation, and for this reason and no other he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- ances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence, and upon briefs aud arguments of counsel the court makes the following T'INDINGS OF FACT. 1. Apdrew J. Guilford, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Alameda, in the State of California. 2. On December IS, 1864, the said Andrew J. Guilford was first sergeant of Company F, Eleventh Regiment Michigan Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on April 23, 1865 — the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The second lieutenant of said Company F, Eleventh Regiment Michigan Vol- unteer Cavalry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and there- after assumed and perfoi'med all the duties of second lieutenant of said Com- pany F, Eleventh Regiment Michigan Volunteer Cavalry, until April 23, 1865, when he was duly mustered in as such. The governor of the State of Michigan also issued to this claimant a commis- sion as second lieutenant Company F, Eleventh "Regiment Michigan Volunteer Cavalry. 3. On the said December 18, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company F, Eleventh Regiment Michigan Volunteer Cavalry, solely because his command H. Rep. 543, 60-1 4 50 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAUST CLAIMS. was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, altlionglit tie continued to per- form the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as second lieutenant. 4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from December IS, 1804, to April 22, 3865, this claimant employed one servant, not enlisted. 5. During said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Govern- ment. 6. If the said Andrew J. Guilford should be deemed second lieutenant of Company F, Eleventh Regiment Michigan Volunteer Cavalry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from December 18, 1S64, to April 23, 1865, would amount to $547.25, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, without making any deduction for income tax. or for rations, which claimant did not draw in kind* 7. Income tax would amount to $24.48, and if to be deducted would leave $522.77. Filed November 2, 1905. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 6th day of December, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. RICHARD N. DOYLE. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-43. Richard N. Doyle v. The United States.] STATFJMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatises on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the ISth day of March, 1907. Messrs. Pennebalcer & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Los Angeles, in the State of California. 2. That he, being the captain of Company H, Eighth Regiment Michigan Vol- unteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of aiichigau as lieutenant-colonel thereof on May 7, 1804, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until August 11, 1865, when he was mustered out as major ; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of lieutenant-colonel during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay aijd allow- ances of a captain and major, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of lieutenant-colonel. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Richard X. Doyle, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the I'nited States and resident in the county of Los Angeles, in the State of California. 2. On May 7, 1S04, the said Itichard N. Doyle was captain of Company H, Eighth Regiment Michigan Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was jiiustered out of the service, to wit, on August 11, 1805, the same was and contin- ued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress api)roved March "3, 1803 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The lieutenant-cojonel of said Eighth Regiment Michigan Volunteer Infantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of lieutenant- colonel devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter asssumed and per- formed all the duties of lieutenant-colonel of said Eighth Regiment Michigan Volunteer Infantrv. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 51 The governor of the State of Michigan also issued to this claimant a commis- sion as lieutenant-colonel, Eighth Regiment Michigan Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said May 7, 1S64, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as lieutenant-colonel of said Eighth Regiment Michigan Volunteeer Infantry solely because his command \\'as below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of lieutenant- colonel until he was mustered out of the service as major, August 11, 1865. 4. If the said Richard N. Doyle should be deemed lieutenant-colonel of the Eighth Regiment Michigan Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a captain and major which he has received, and that of a lieutenant-colonel to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from May 7, 1SG4, to August 11, 1S65, would amount to $307.07 (three hundred and ninety-seven dollars and ninety-seven cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, includ- ing a short payment of $6.58. By the Court. Filed March 18, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 19th day of March, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOSEPH M. CLARK. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-33. Joseph M. Clark v. The United States..] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of April, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of San Jose, in the State of California. 2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company I, Thirty-third Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Iowa as first lieutenant thereof on July 27, 1863, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until November 2, 1863, when he was mustered in as such; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law aiid regulation, and for the reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of first lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- ances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of first lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Joseph M. Clark, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of San Jose, in the State of California. 2. On July 27, 1863, the said Joseph M. Clark was first sergeant of Company I, Thirty-third Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on November 2, 1863, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863' (12 Stat. L., 734.) The first lieutenant of said Company I, Thirty -third Regiment Iowa Volun- teer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of first lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter as- sumed and performed all the duties of first lieutenant of said Company I, Thirty-third Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, until November 2, 1863. 52 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to this claimant a commission as first lieutenant, Company I, Thirty-third Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said July 27, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as first lieutenant of said Company I, Thirty-third Regi- mejit Iowa Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its mini- mum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of first lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such November 2, 1863. 4. If the said Joseph M. Clark should be deemed first lieutenant of Company I, Thirty-third Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difLerence between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a first lieutenant without servant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from July 27, 1863, to October 31, 1863, would amount to $184.12 (one hundred and eighty- four dollars and twelve cents), as reported bj^ the Auditor for the War Depart- ment. By the Court. Filed April 1, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 2d day of April, 1907. [SEAL. J John Randolph, Asfsistant Clerk Court of Claims. JULIA H. CASTLE, DAUGHTER OF JOHN H. HOWE. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-84. Julia H. Castle, daughter of John H. Howe, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of , March, 1907. Messrs. Peunebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney- General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant, in her petition, makes substantially the following allegations : 1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Los Angeles, in the State of California, and is the daughter of John H. Howe, deceased. 2. That said John II. Howe, being the lieutenant-colonel of the One hundred and twenty-fourth Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Illinois as colonel thereof on December 15, 1863, and that from and after January 14, 1864, the said John H. Howe assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until August 16, 1865, when he was mustered out as lieutenant-colonel ; said regiment was con- tinuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said John H. Howe was refused muster and recog- nition in the grade of colonel during said period. 3. That during said period the said John H. Howe was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the continu- ous performance of the duties of colonel. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Julia H. Castle, the claimant of this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Los Angeles, in the State of California. 2. On January 14, 1864, John H.^^Howe was lieutenant-colonel of the One hun- dred and twenty-fourth Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on August 16, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by Gen- eral Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 53 The colonel of said One hundred and twenty-fourth Regiment Illinois Volun- teer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel devolved ui3on said John H. Howe, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of colonel of said One hundred and twenty-fourth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry. The governor of the State of Illinois also issued to said John H. Howe a commission as colonel One hundred and twenty-fourth Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said January 14, 1864, the mustering officer theu and thereafter refused to muster the said John H. Howe as colonel of said One hundred and twenty-fourth Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he con- tinued to perform the duties of colonel until he was mustered out of the service as lieutenant-colonel, August 16, 1865. 4. If the said John H. Howe should be deemed colonel of the One hundred and twenty-fourth Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a lieuten- ant-colonel, which he has received, and that of a colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered from the period from January 14, 1864, to August 16, 1865, would amount to $575.93 (Ave hundred and seventy-five dollars and ninety-three cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War De- partment, including short payment aggregating $29.78. By the Court. Filed March 11, 1907. A true copv of the findings of fact as filed bv the court. Test this 13th day of March, 1907. [seal.] John R vndolph. Assistant CJerh Court of Claims. COLORADO. JAMES W. HANNA. [Court of Claims. No. 12169-85. James ^Y. Hanna r. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of January, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ai> prepared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the fcllowing allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in -the county of Denver, in the State of Colorado. 2. That he, being the first lieutenant of Company F, Eleventh Regiment of Ohio Volunteer Cavalry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor ,of the State of Ohio as captain thereof on February 27, 1866; and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until July 14, 1866, when he was mustered out as first lieutenant ; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of captain during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- ances of a first lieutenant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of captain. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. James W. Hanna, the claimant in this case, is a citiezu of the United States and resident in the county of Denver, in the State of Colorado. 2. On February 27, 1866, the sai:! claimant was first lieutenant of Company F, Eleventh Regiment Ohio Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and until he was 54 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. mustered out the service, to wit, on July 14, 1866, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The captain of said Company F, Eleventh Regiment Ohio Volunteer Cavalry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of captain de- volved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of captain of said Company F, Eleventh Regiment Ohio Volunteer Cavalry, until July 14, 1866, when he was mustered out of the service. The governor of the State of Ohio also issued to this claimant a commission as captain Company L, Eleventh Regiment Ohio Volunteer Cavalry. 3. On the said February 27, 1866, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as captain of said Company L, Eleventh Regi- ment Ohio oVlunteer Cavalry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of captain until he was mustered out of the service as first lieutenant, as afore- said. 4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from February 27, 1866, to July 14, 1866, this claimant employed a servant, not enlisted, for which he has been fully paid. 5. During said period this claimant did not di*aw rations from the Gov- ernment. 6. If the said James W. Hanna should be deemed captain of Company P, Eleventh Regiment Ohio Volunteer Cavalry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first lieutenant, which he has received, and that of a captain, to which he would have been en- titled had he been mustered for the period from February 27, 1866, to July 14, 1866, would amount to $148.34 without any deduction for income tax, as re- ported by the Auditor for the War Department. 7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $7.42, leaving balance of one hundred and forty dollars and ninety-two cents ($140.92). By the Court. Filed January 21, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 24th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. WILLIAM B. PALMER. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-139. William B. Palmer v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27h day of March, 1906. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- . General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Denver, in the State of Colorado. 2. That he, being the sergeant of Company C, Fifty-third Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Illinois as second lieutenant thereof on November 13, 1864, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until March 29, 1865, when he was mustered in as second lieutenant; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed anil i>aid only the pay and allow- ances of a sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 55 Upon tlie reports furuislied by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court ma lies the following FINDING qf FACT. 1. William B. Palmer, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Denver, in the State of Colorado. 2. On November 11, 1864, the said William B. Palmer was sergeant of Com- pany C; Fifty-third Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on March 29, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March .3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The second lieutenant of said Company C, Fifty-third Regimeut Illinois Vol- unteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and there- after assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Com- pany C, Fifty-third Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry. The' governor of the State of Illinois also issued to this claimant a commis- sion as second lieutenant, Company C, Fifty-third Regiment Illinois Volunteei Infantry. 3. On said November 11, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter re- fused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company C, Fifty- third Regiment Illinois "N^olunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such, March 29, 1865. 4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from November 11, 1864, to March 29, 1865, this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. 6. If the said William B. Palmer should be deemed second lieutenant of Com- pany C, Fifty-third Regimeut Illinois Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from November 11, 1864. to March 28, 1865, would amount to three hundred and sixty dollars and sixty-five cents ($365.65), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. By the Court. Filed March 11, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 13th day of March, 1907. [SEAL.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. GEORGE T. SHACKELFORD. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-162. George T. Shackelford v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the llth" day of March, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Den- ver, in the State of Colorado. 2. That he, being the lieutenant-colonel of the Sixth Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the govei-nor of the State of Kentucky as colonel thereof on July 7, 1863, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until Sep- tember 1, 1863, when he was mustered in as such. Said regiment was continu- ously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this 56 ALLOWAIsrCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. reason, and no other, lie was refused muster and recognition in tlie grade of colonel during said period. 3. Tliat during said period lie was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- ances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of colonel. * Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of coimsel, the court makes the following FINDINGS or FACT. 1. George T. Shackelford, the claimant in. this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Denver, in the State of Colorado. 2. On July 7, 1863, the said George T. Shackelford was lieutenant-colonel of the Sixth Regiment Kentuckj'^ Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on September 1, 1863, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3. 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The colonel of said Sixth Eegiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of colonel of said Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to this claimant a com- mission as colonel Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said July 7, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as colonel of said Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as afore- said, although he continued to perform the duties of colonel until he was mus- tered into the service as such September 1, 1863. 4. If the said George T. Shackelford should be deemed colonel of the Sixth Regiment Kentucky ^'olunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel, which he has received, and that of a colonel, to which he would ha\e been entitled had he been mustered for the period from July 7. 1863. to August 31. 1863, would amount to $43.80 (forty-three dollars and eighty cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. By the Court. Filed March 11, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 13th day of March. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. CONNECTICUT. JAMES F. BROWN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-13. James F. Brown v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of April, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the I'nited States. The claimant, in his petition, makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of New London, in the State of (Connecticut. 2. That he being the lieutenant-colonel Twenty-first Regiment of Connecticut Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governcn* of the State of Connecticut as colonel thereof on October 1, 1864, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until July 6, 1865, when he was mustered out as lieutenant-colonel : said regiment was continuously below the minimum number in-escribed by law and regulation, and ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIlir CLAIMS. 57 for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of colonel during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- ances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of colonel. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. James F. Brown, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of New London, in the State of Connecticut. 2. On October 1, 1864, the said .James F. Brown was lieutenant-colonel of the Twenty-first Regiment Connecticut Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on July 6, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182, of the War Department, of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved IMarch 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The colonel of said Twenty-first Regiment Connecticut Volunteer Infantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of colonel of said Twenty-first Regiment Connecticut Volunteer Infantry until July 6, 1865. The governor of the State of Connecticut also issued to this claimant a com- mission as colonel Twenty-first Regiment Connecticut Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said October 1, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as colonel of said Twenty-first Regiment Con- necticut Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its mini- mum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of colonel until he was mustered out of the service as lieutenant-colonel, July 6, 1865. 4. If the said James F. Brown should be deemeiV colonel of the TAventy-first Regiment Connecticut ^'olunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difii'erence between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel which he has received, and that of a colonel to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from October 1. 1864, to July 6, 1865, would amount to ($262.98) two huntn-ed and sixty-two dollars and ninetj'-eight cents, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. By the Court. Filed April 22, 1907. A true copy of findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 24th day of April, 1907. [seal.] .John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. E. W. AND R. H. HUBBELL, EXECUTORS OF JAMES E. HUBBELL. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-73. B. W. HulDbell and R. H. Hubbell, executors of James E. Hubbell, deceased, v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of April, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : 1. That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Fairfield, in the State of Connecticut, and are the executors of James E. Hub- bell, deceased. 2. That said James E. Hubbell, being the first sergeant of Company E, Seven- teenth Regiment of Connecticut Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or com- missioned by the governor of the State of Connecticut as second lieutenant thereof on June 24, 1863, and that from and after said date the said James E. 58 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. Hubbell assumed aucl performed all tlie duties of Ills said grade until September 1, 1865, when be was mustered In as sucb; said regiment was continuously below tbe minimum number prescribed by law and regulations, and for this reason, and no other, said James E. Hubbell was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period the said James E. Hubbell was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the con- tinuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. E. W. Hubbell and R. H. Hubbell, the claimants of this case, are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Fairfield, in the State of Connecticut. 2. On June 24, 1863, James E. Hubbell was first sergeant of Company E, Seventeenth Regiment of Connecticut Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on Sepember 1, 1863, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The second lieutenant of said Company E, Seventeenth Regiment Connecticut Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon said James E. Hubbell, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company E, Seventeenth Regiment Connecticut Volunteer Infantry. The governor of the State of Connecticut also issued to said James E. Hub- bell a commission as second lieutenant Company E, Seventeenth Regiment of Connecticut Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said June 24. 1863, the mustering ofiicer then and thereafter re- fused to muster the said James E. Hubbell as second lieutenant of said Com- pany E, Seventeenth Regiment of Connecticut Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he con- tinued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such, September 1, 1863. 4. If the said James E. Hubbell should be deemed second lieutenant of Com- pany E, Seventeenth Regiment of Connecticut "S'olunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered from the period from June 24, 1863, to August 31, 1863, would amount to $109.27 (one hundred and nine dol- lars and twenty-seven cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Depart- ment. By the Court. Filed April 1, 1907. A true copy of the findings of facts as filed by the court. Test this 2d day of April, 1907. [seal.] .John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Clahits, CHARLES H. SIMMONS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10788. Charles H. Simmons v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of January, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeai'ed for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 59 Tlie claimant in his petition makes snbstantially the following allegations : 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Windham, in the State of Connecticut. 2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company H, Eleventh Regiment of Connecticut Volunteer Infantry, was dulj^ appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Connecticut as second lieutenant Company G thereof on July 18, 1863, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until August 9, 1863, when he was mustered in as such. Said regiment was continuously below the minimum number pre- scribed by law and regulation, and for this reason and no other he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- ances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon the reports fux*nished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Charles H. Simmons, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Windham, in the State of Connecticut. 2. On July 18, 1863, the said Charles H. Simmons was first sergeant of Com- pany H, Eleventh Regiment Connecticut Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on August 9, 1863, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734), The second lieutenant of said Company G, Eleventh Regiment Connecticut Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and there- after assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Com- pany G, Eleventh Regiment Connecticut Volunteer Infantry, until August 9, 1863, when mustered in as such. The governor of the State of Connecticut also issued to this claimant a com- mission as second lieutenant Company G, Eleventh Regiment Connecticut Volun- teer Infantry. 3. On the said July 18, 1863, the jnustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company G, Eleventh Regi- ment Connecticut Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such, August 9, 1863. 4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from July 18, 1863, to August 9, 1863, this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. 6. If the said Charles H. Simmons should be deemed second lieutenant of Company G, Eleventh Regiment Connecticut Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from July 18, 1863, to August 8, 1863, would amount to $39.94, without any deduction for in- come tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, including a short payment of $3. 7. Income tax would amount to 69 cents, and if deducted would leave thirty- nine dollars and twenty-five cents ($39.25). By the Court. Filed January 7, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 9th day, of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims, 60 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. ELLA L. DEWEESE, WIDOW OF JOHN T. DEWEESE. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-40. Ella L. Deweese, widow of John T. Deweese, deceased, v. The United States.] \ STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above- entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. Messrs. Peunebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by James A. Turner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the city of Wash- ington, in the District of Columbia, and is the widow of John T. Deweese, deceased. 2. That said John T. Deweese, being the lieutenant-colonel of Fourth Regi- ment of Indiana Volunteer Ca.valry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Indiana as colonel thereof on September 10, 1863 ; and that from and after said date the said colonel assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until March 11, 1S64, when he was mustered out as lieutenant-colonel ; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said John T. Deweese was refused muster and recognition in the grade of colonel during said period. 3. That during said period the said John T. Deweese was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of colonel. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Ella L. Deweese, the claimant of this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident of the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia. 2. On September 10, 1863, John T. Deweese was lieutenant-colonel of Fourth Regiment of Indiana Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and until he was mus- tered out of the service, to wit, on March 11, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20. 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Con- gress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). The colonel of said Fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Cavalry being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel devolved upon said John T. Deweese, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of colonel of said Fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Cavalry. The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to said John T. Deweese a commission as colonel Fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Cavalry. 3. On the said September 10, 1S63, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster the said John T. Deweese as colonel of said Fourth Regiment of Indiana A^olunteer Cavalry, solely because his command was below its mini- mum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of colonel until he was mustered oat of the service as lieutenant-colonel, March 11, 1864. 4. If the said John T. Deweese should be deemed colonel of Fourth Regiment of Indiana Volunteer Cavalry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the differ- ence between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel, which he has re- ceived, and that of a colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered from the period from September 11, 1863, to March 11, 1864, would amount to $155.09 (one hundred and fifty-five dollars and nine cents) ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIISr CLAIMS. 61 without any deduction for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, including short payments of $9.67. By the Couet. Filed March 11, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 13th day of March, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk, Court of Claims. BENJAMIN F. HASSON. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-82. Benjamin F. Hasson v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of May, 1907. Messers. Peunebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the city of Wash- ington, in the District of Columbia. 2. That he, being a private of Company F, Twenty-second Regiment of Penn- sylvania Volunteer Cavalry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the gov- ernor of the State of Pennsylvania as second lieutenant thereof on May 11, 1864, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until September 7, 1S64, when he was mustered in as such ; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason and no other he was refused muster and recogni- tion in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- ances of a private, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Benjamin F. Hasson, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia. 2. On May 11, 1864, the said Benjamin F. Hasson was private of Company F, Twenty-second Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry. It does not appear from the evidence that on that date and until he was mustered into the service^ to wit, on September 7, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the mini- mum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 30, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). George T. Hammond, the second lieutenant of said Company F, Twenty-second Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry, was dismissed from the service Sep- tember 21, 1863, while a prisoner of war on the charge of desertion to the enemy, and the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon the claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company F, Twenty-second Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry, until September 7, 1864, when he wtte mustered in as such. The order dismissing said Lieut. George T. Hammond was subsequently revoked, and he was honorably discharged from the service, to date, November 29, 1864. The governor of the State of Pennsylvania also issued to this claimant a com- mission as second lieutenant, Company F, Twenty-second Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry. 62 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 3. On the said May 11, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company F, Twenty-second Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry, although he continued to perform the duties of private until he was mustered into the service as second lieutenant, September 7, 1S64. 4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from May 11, 1864. to September 7, 1864, this claimant employed one private servant, not enlisted. 5. During said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Govern- ment. 6. If the said Benjamin F. Hasson should be deemed second lieutenant of Company F. Twenty-second Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a private, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled, had he been mustered for the period from May 11, 1864, to September 6, 1864, would amount to $365.39 (three himdred and sixty- five dollars and thirty-nine cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. By the Coukt. Filed May 13, 1907. A true copy of the findings of facts as filed by the court. Test this 16th day of May, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. HARRISON L. DEAM. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10664. Harrison L. Deam v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of April, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney- General by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially he following allegations : 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the city of Wash- ington, in the District of Columbia. 2. That he, being the captain of Company E, Thirty-fourth Regiment of In- diana Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Indiana as major thereof on March 21, 1865 ; and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until January 9, 1866, when he was mustered out as captain ; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for that reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of major during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- ances of a captain, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of major. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and tipon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Harrison L. Deam, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia. 2. On INIarch 21, 18(55, the said Harrison L. Deam was captain of Company E, Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana \'olunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out the service, to wit, on January 9, 1866, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Dei)artment of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The major of said Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of major devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of major of said Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana ^'olunteer Infanti'y un- til mustered out January 9, 1866. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 63 The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a commis- sion as major, Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana 'S'olunteer Infantry. 3. On the said March 21, 1S66, the mustering officer then and thereafter re- fused to muster this claimant as major of said Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana \'olunteer Infantry, solely because his command \yas below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to jierform the duties of majiu" until he was mustered out of the service as captain January 9, 1866. 4. If the said Harrison I^. Deani should be deemed major of the Thirtj-- fourth Regiment Indiana Voimiteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, with one servant, the difference between his pay and allowances as a captain, which he has received, and that of a major, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from ^Nlarch 21, 1S66, to January 9, 1860, would amount to one hundred and fifteen dollars and seventy- four cents ($115.74), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, in- cluding short iiayments as lieutenant and captain. By the Court. Filed April 22. 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 24th day of April, 1907. [SEAt.] John Randolph. Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. rLomDA. JOSEPH D. HAZZARD. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-70. Joseph D. Hazzard v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the 'Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of ^Nlay, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 18th day of March, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-Gen- eral, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assittant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Lake, in the State of Florida. 2. That he, being the first lieutenant of Company D, Seventy-ninth Regiment of Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Pennsj'lvania as captain thereof on December 20, 1864 ; and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until July 18, 1865, when Le was mustered out as first lieutenant; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number pre- scribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of captain during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- ances of a first lieutenant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of captain. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Joseph D. Plazzard, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Lake, in the State of Florida. 2. On December 20, 1864, the said Joseph D. Hazzard was first lieutenant of Company D, Seventy-ninth Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on July 18, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by (4eneral Orders No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., p. 734.) 64 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The captain of said Company D, Seveuty-nintli Regiment Pennsylvania Vol- unteer Infantry, being tlien and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of captain devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter as- sumed and performed all of the duties of captain of said Company D, Seventy- ninth Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry. The governor of the State of Pennsylvania also issued to this claimant a com- mission as captain of Company D, Seventy -ninth Regiment Pennsylvania Vol- unteer Infantry. 3. On the said December 20. 1864. the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as captain of said Company D, Seventy -ninth Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of captain until he was mustered out of the service as first lieutenant July 18, 1865. 4. If the said Joseph D. Hazzard should be deemed captain of Company D, Seventy-ninth Regiment Pennsylvania 'N'olunteei: Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difterence between his pay and allowances as a first lieutenant, which he has received, and that of captain, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from December 20, 1864, to July IS, 1865, would amount to $103.21 (one hundred and six dollars and twenty-one cents) as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. By the Court. Filed :March 18, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this ibth day of March, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant CJcrk Court of Claims. TELESFOR D. QUIGLES, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 0941. Telesfor D. Qnigles, administrator of Manette Marsons, deceased, and of her husband, Miguel Qulgles, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the I'nited States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by a resolution of the House of Representatives on the 21st day of February, 1899. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and its merits on the 12th day of January, 1903. George A. and William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is the administrator of Manette Marsons, deceased, and of her hus- band, Miguel Quigles, deceased, appointed on the 7th day of February, 1900, by the county court in and for the county of Escambia, and State of Flori;!a : that said claimant's decedents were, during the civil war, residents of the State of Florida and did not give any aid or comfort to the said rebellion, but were throughout that war loyal to the Government of the United States. That the following property belonging to claimant's descendent. Manette Marsons, ^-as taken from her by the United States Army and used by the said Army in Escambia County, State of Florida, on or ab2, by Col. Jonathan Tarbell, of the Ninety-first New York Regiment, Major Babcoc, Capt. Allen H. Jackson, and IJeut. John Ilulbert. viz: 40 bedsteads, at $5 $200.00 50 washstands, at $2 100.00 80 moss matti-esses, at $5 400.00 80 feather pillows, at $2 160. 00 40 feather bolsters, at $3 120.00 200 cotton sheets, 1,200 yards, at S cents 96.00 200 cotton pillow slips, 300 yards, at 8 cents 24. 00 50 mosquito bars, at' 80 cents 40.00 50 bureaus, at $8 400.00 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 65 4 wardrobes (mahogany), at $20 $80.00 3 sideboards, at $30 90.00 40 small piue tables, at $3 120.00 5 extension tables, at $25 125.00 200 cane-bottom cliairs, at $1.-50 300.00 12 rocking-chairs, at $3 36.00 48 dozen tumblers, $2 per dozen 96. 00 120 dozen plates (stoneware), $2 per dozen 240.00 180 dozen cups and saucers, at $1 per dozen 180. 00 80 dozen bowls and pitchers, at $1.25 per dozen 100.00 1,000 j^ards wool carpet, at 60 cents per yard 600. 00 12 dozen knives and forks, at $5 per dozen 96.00 12 dozen silver tablespoons, at $10 per dozen 120. 00 12 dozen silver teaspoons, at $5 per dozen 60. 00 160 woolen blankets, at $3 480.00 50 quilts, at $3 150.00 100 large dishes (stoneware), at 50 cents 50.00 100 small dishes (stoneware), at 25 cents 25.00 12 casters, at .$2 : 24.00 2 dozen cushion-bottom chairs (mahogany) 120.00 6 dozen cushion-bottom chairs (mahogany), at $6 36.00 4 mahogany sofas, at $20 80. 00 1 brussels carpet 40. 00 3 dozen decanters, at $12 per dozen 36. 00 2 large silver-plated pitchers, at $10 20.00 2 large silver-plated sugar stands 10.00 15 cows and calves, at $15 225.00 10 hogs, at $4 40.00- 12 dozen chickens, at $5 per dozen 60.00 2 horses, at $150 300.00 3 mule L 150. 00 1 carriage 100. 00 ] buggy 75. 00 1 cart 25. 00 1 large cooking stove 100.00 25 grates, at $5 . 125.00 2 large kitchen pine tables, at $2 4.00 2 dining-room safes, at $15 30.00 1 set barrom fixtures : 100. 00 3 barrels of whisky, 126 gallons, at $1 126. 00 120 gallons American brandy, at 80 cents per gallon 96. 00 90 gallons French brandy, at $8.50 per gallon 765.00 1 barrel Holland gin, 112 gallons, at $3 336.00 12 baskets of champagne (gallon), at $18 per gallon 216.00 6 dozen bottles of Orgeat, at $9 per dozen 54. 00 12 dozen bottles claret wine, at $3 per dozen 36.00 12 dozen bottles pale ale, at $1.50 per dozen 18.00 12 dozen bottles porter, at $1.50 per dozen 18. 00 2 dozen bottles bitters, at $11 per dozen 22. 00 1 barrel of white sugar, at 9 cents per pound 18. 90 1 barrel Santa Cruz rum, 42 gallons, at $8 126. 00 8, 029. 90 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. I. There were taken from the claimant's decedent In Escambia County, State of Florida, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of four thousand three hundred dollars ($4,300), for which no payment appears to have been • made. II. It appears from the evidence that Manette Marsons was loyal to the Gov- ernment of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. H. Rep. 543, 60-1 5 66 AlrLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. III. The claim was not presented to the commissioners of claims or to the Southern Claims Commission or the Commissary-General, and no evidence has been offered by the claimant under the act of March 3, 18S7, " bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in presenting such claim or applying for such grant, gift, or bounty, and any facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy," except that some effort appears to have been made to collect the same, but by whom or in what way does not appear. By the Court. Filed January 19, 1903. A true copy. Test this 1st day of December, 1903. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. GEORGIA. G. W. AYCOCK, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 4795. Reddiek Aycock v. Tlie United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppresion of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Reddiek Aycock, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By THE Court. Filed October 26, 1903. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 4795. G. W. Aycock, administrator of Red- diek Aycock, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court bv the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27th day of June, 1888. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 26th day of October, 1903, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies, or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 23d day of October, 1905. George A. »&: William B. King, esqs., ap'peared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Charles P. M. Ashford, esq., his assistant and imder his dii'ection, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : That he is the administrator of the claimant's decedent, appointed on the 3d of October, 1904," by the ordinary court in and for Walton County, State of Georgia. That the following property belonging to claimant's decedent was taken from him by the United States Army, the date, place, and command being particularly stated below : In Rockdale County, Ga., on or about July 16 and November 16, 1S64, by troops of the commands of Generals Gerard and Sherman, U. S. A., to wit: 1 black mule $150.00 60 pounds bacon 9.00 40 pounds lard 6.00 1 yoke steers 100.00 18 fat hogs 200.00 3 cows 75. 00 5 stock hogs 25.00 40 bushels wheat 50.00 102 bushels corn 102.00 940 bundles fodder 18.80 24 chickens 6. 00 Total . 811. 80 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 67 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OF FACT. There were taken from the claimant's decedent in Eockdale County, Ga., dur- ing the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, stores and supplies as above described, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of five hundred and fifteen dollars ($515). It does not appear that any payment has been made for any part thereof. By the Court. Filed October .30, 1905. A true copy. Test this Sth day of February, 1906. [SEAL.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims^ FANNIE CROW, ADMINISTRATRIX OF LEA'I CROW. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11325. Estate of Levi Crow, deceased, i". The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use daring the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry,, finds that Levi Crow, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such sup- plies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed October 30, 1905. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11325. Fannie Crow, administratrix of the estate of Levi Crow, deceased, v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 4th day of March, 1904. On a preliminary inquiry, the court, on the 30th day of October, 1905, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the Sth day of April, 1907. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by P. M. Ashford, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in Paulding County, State of Georgia, where her decedent resided during the late civil war. That there was taken from her decedent, in Paulding County, State of Geor- gia, by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, and ap- propriated to the use of the Army during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, property of the kind and value as follows : Item 1. 225 bushels of corn, at $1 $225. 00 Item 2. 1,500 pounds of fodder, at $1.50 22. 50' Items. 1 bay mule 125.00 Item 4. 1 black mare 100.00' Item 5. 1 bay horse 75.00' Item 6. 100 pounds of bacon 20.00 Item 7. 28 hogs, 1,500 pounds 150. 00^ Item 8. 800 pounds of beef 85. 00 Item 9. 12 acres of corn 120.00 Total 872. 50 68 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. (Taken by Gen. W. T. Sherman's command in July and September, 1864.) Tbe court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. There was taken from the claimant's decedent in Paulding County, State of •Georgia, by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of seven hundred and ten dollars ($710.00). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed April 22, 1907. A true copy. Test this 31st day of October, 1907. fsEAL.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JULIA A. CRUSELLE, ADMINISTRATRIX OF WILLIAM H. RICE. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12005. Estate of William A. Rice, deceased, v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that William H. Rice, deceased, the person alleged to have fur- nished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed October 28, 1907. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 12005. Julia A. Crusselle, administratrix of estate of William H. Rice, deceased, v. The United States.] statement op case. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 11th day of January, 1906. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 28th day of October, 1907, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 6th day of January, 1908. Brandenburg & Brandenburg, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by Clark McKercher, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : That said William H. Rice, now deceased, during the said war was a resident of Fulton County, State of Georgia, and was the owner and possessor in said county and State of cei'taiu quartermaster stores and commissary supplies, which in the fall of 1864 were seized and appropriated to the use of the military forces of the United States then stationed and operating in said locality, accord- ing to the following bill of items : 55 boxes fine tobacco, brand ''Black Navy," weighing 105 pounds per box, 5,775 pounds, at $2 per pound $11,550.00 1 Herrings iron safe 400.00 3 table counters, at $25 each 75.00 Fairbanks .3,000-pound scales 30.00 Counter scales and weights 12.00 19 boxes farina, or cornstarch, averaging 25 pounds per box, 475 pounds, at 25 cents 118.75 1 dwelling house, and building attached, and plank and picket fencing -• 2,000.00 Soap factory, 2 large kettles attached 800.00 Stock of flour, meal, bacon, and provision on hand in store 300.00 Total - 15,285.75 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 69 The court, upon the evidence and after the consideration of briefs and after hearing the arguments of the respective counsel, malves the following FINDING OF FACT. There was taken from the claimant's decedent in Fulton County, State of Georgia, by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character described in the petition, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of eight thousand one hundred and ninety dollars ($8,190). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Coubt. Filed January 13, 1908. ' A true copy. Test this 17th day of January, A. D. 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims, [House Report No. 1715, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] MICHAEL KRIES. The Committee on War Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 8994) for the relief of Michael Kries, submit the following report : This claim is for the value of 4,936 pounds of tobacco furnished General Sherman's army at Atlanta, Ga.. in 1864. This property was not seized by virtue of military authority, but was taken under orders of General Sherman and issued as rations to his soldiers. It was accounted for by the quartermaster in his property returns, and he gave a voucher for it by packages and numbers and stated the value to be $2 per pound. The following history of similar claims, arising at the same time and under the same circumstances and orders, is taken from the report of the Southern Claims Commission on the subject of tobacco furnished the Army : "ToMcco. — Until the act of March 3, 1865, tobacco was not furnished to the Army. Under that act it has been issued to those who use it and charged tO' them on the pay rolls. "In the claims that have come before us tobacco has not usually been re- garded as a supply, and therefore has been disallowed. " Claims for tobacco alleged to have been taken and issued to the troops at Atlanta, Geoi-gia, under the order of General Sherman of September 8, 1864, are pending before us. The examination of them is still going on, and they will be reported upon hereafter." After the capture of Atlanta, in September. 1864, General Sherman found that he was short of rations for his army and that the soldiers were subject to many privations. To make his army contented, and, as far as possible, to make up to them for their usual rations, of which they were for the time deprived, he issued an order on the Sth of September, 1864, authorizing the chief commissary of sub- sistence to take possession of and issue to the troops all the tobacco in Atlanta and give certificates thereof to the owners, to be accounted for in accordance with existing orders. Pursuant to this order tobacco belonging to George J. Stubblefleld was taken, and upon his making claim for payment the Commissary Department recom- mended, "As this tobacco was taken by order of General Sherman and issued to- the troops in lieu of other rations, and as the loyalty of the claimant is clearly established," that payment should be made. This was approved by the Secre- tary of War, Mr. Stanton, and the claim was paid. The payment stands upon the ground that when an army is deprived of its usual rations the commanding general can, in his judgment, authorize an article not a supply to be taken and used for the time being as a supply and in lieu of other rations « and in such case the Government is bound to pay for it. The commissioners of claims followed this precedent and allowed for tobacco when taken under General Sherman's order. The commissioners of claims, under twelfth ai'ticle of treaty of 8th May, 1871, between the United States and Great Britain, adopted the same principle, Hale's report to the Secretary of State, November 30, 1873, page 45, showing an award only when it was " allowed as an army ration," 70 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. Gen. M. R. Morgan, Commissary-General of Subsistence of the United States Army, under date of March 3, 1896, says : War Department, Office Commissary-General of Subsistence, Washington, March 3, 1896. Respectfully returned to the Secretary of War, with report that the price allowed by this Department to George J. Stubblefield, of Atlanta, Ga., for the tobacco taken from him by order of General Sherman in September, 1864, was $1.50 per pound. M. R. Morgan, Commissary-General of Subsistence. This being a question of barter and sale, the question of the loyalty of Mr. Kries should not be an issue. Your committee, however, have made an examina- tion upon this pouit and find that Michael Kries, a naturalized citizen, being a Frenchman by birth, was loyal. They have, however, adopted as a measure of damage $1.50 per pound instead of $2 per pound, as stated in the quartermaster's voucher, for the reason that the former amount seems to be a fair price for tobacco taken under the above circumstances, as evidenced by the letter of Commissary-General of Subsistence Morgan, above quoted. Your committee respectfully recommend the passage of the accompanying bill. PLYMOUTH FRAZIER, JR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12384. Plymouth Frazier, jr., v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Plymouth Frazier, jr., the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. fCourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 12384. Plymouth Frazier, jr., v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 16th day of June, 1906. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 22d day of October, 1906, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 14th day of January, 1907. Ralston & Siddoiis appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the Uiiited States, residing in Liberty County, Ga. : that during the war for the suppression of the rebellion he was a resident of said State and county, and was loyal to the Government of the United States ; that in the month of December. 1864. in said State and county, at or near the town of Midway, forces of the United States Army, being General Kil-patrick's command of Sherman's army, took from the petitioner for the use of said army the following stores and supplies, for which no payment has been made or no vouchers or receipts have been given : ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 71 1 bay mare $150.00 7 head cattle 140.00 12 head hogs, $4 each 48. 00 60 bushels rough rice 90.00 15 bushels of corn 15. 00 e beehives of honey 9.00 10 head of ducks 7.50 25 head chickens 12.50 4 dozen eggs 1.00 Bedding and bedclothes 37.00 Lot of cooking utensils 10.00 Total 520. 00 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the arguments and briefs of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OF FACT. During the wav for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from the claimant in Liberty County, Ga., property as above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of one hundred and twenty-two dollars ($122) ; no part of which appears to have been paid. By the Court. Filed January 21, 1907. A true copy. Test this 21st day of February, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph. Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ABRAHAM GREESON. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 3335. Abraham Greeson v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Abraham Greeson, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed February 4, 1907. statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 30th day of March, 1888. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 4th day of February, 1907, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of May, 1907. Moyers »& Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George E. Boren, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant, in his petition, makes the following allegations : That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Gor- don, State of Georgia ; that during the late civil war he was a citizen of the United States and a resident of said county and State; that during said war the 72 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. j- United States military forces, imder proper auhority, took from him and con- verted to tlie use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and commis- sary supplies, as follows, to wit : Taljen from farm of claimant, near Resaca, Ga., by troops under com- mand of General Sherman, in spring of 1864 : 1 young stallion $300. 00 100 bushels of corn, at $1.50 per bushel 150. 00 500 pounds bacon, at 30 cents per pound 150. 00 Hay and fodder 10.00 Taken by same command in fall of 1864 : 200 bushels corn, at $1. 50 per bushel 300. 00 Total 910. 00 The court, upon the eA'idence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, njakes the following FINDING OF FACT. There was taken from the claimant in Gordon County, State of Georgia, dur- ing the late civil war by the military forces of the United States for the use of the army, property of the kind and character above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of four hundred and five dollars ($405). No payment appears to have been made for any part thereof. By the Court. Filed May 6, 1907. A true copy. Test this 20th day of December, 1907. [sea.] John Randolph, Assistant ClerJc Court of Claims. SIBINI JONES. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12289. Sibini Jones v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for property alleged to have been taken by the military forces of the United States for the use of the Army. The following bill was referred to the court by the House of Representatives Mai-ch 31, 1906, under the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : *' [H. R. 4557, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] " A BILL for the relief of Sahini Jones. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Reiiresentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to Sabini Jones the sum of four hundred and eighty-five dollars, in full for property taken by the Union Army in April, eighteen hundred and sixty-fi\e, in Pike County, Georgia, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated." The claimant appeared and filed her petition herein July 10, 1906, in which she makes the following allegations : That she was always a loyal citizen of the United States, and in 1865 lived in Pike County, Ga. That in April, 1865, the Federal Army, under the command of General Ros- seau, came through that part of the country and took from her, for the use of the Union Army — 1 mule and 1 horse of the value of $450 100 hams of the value of 35 Total 485 for which no compensation was ever made to her. That as soon as she knew of the passage of the Tucker Act she had a bill introduced in the Fifty-eighth Congress. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 73 The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on November 4, 1907, Ellen Spencer Mussey appearing for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Clark McKercher, his assistant and under his direction, appearing for the defense and protection of the intei'ests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant, Sibini Jones, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. There was taken from the claimant in Pike County, Ga., by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character described in the petition which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and fifteen dollars ($215.00), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the provisions of the Tucker Act as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. Filed November 11, 1907. A true copy. Test this 2d day of December, A. D. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. CATHARINE KELTON. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 3782. Catharine Kelton v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military foi-ces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Catharine Kelton, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed November 12, 1906. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 3782. Catharine Kelton v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the (jth day of March, 1888. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 12th day of November, 1906, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of December, 1906. C. A. and F. W. Brandenburg, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : That during the said war she was a resident of Fulton County, State of Georgia, and was the owner and possessor on her lot in said county and State of certain quartermaster stores and commissary supplies, which in the year of 3864 were seized and appropriated to the use of the military forces of the United 74 AT.T.nWA-NrOTC OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. States then stationed and operating in said locality, according to the following bill of items : Lumber and material of one dwelling house $1, 500 Lumber and material of one cook kitchen 300 Lumber and material of one negro kitchen 200 Lumber of yard fence 50 Total 2, 050 The court, upon the evidence and after the consideration of briefs and after hearing the arguments of the respective counsel, makes the following FINDING OF FACT, During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of and used for military purposes materials as above described, which were, at the time and place of taking, reasonably worth the sum of five hundred dollars ($500), no part of which appears to have been paid. By the Court. Filed December 17, 1906. A true copy. Test this 4th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOE M. MOON, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9528. Estate of Elijah Pinson, deceased, v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Elijah Pinson, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed February 16, 1903. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 9528. Joe M. Moon, administrator of the estate of Elijah Pinson, deceased, v. The United States.] statement OF case. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores, alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 29th day of January, 1S97. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 16th day of February, 1903, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supjilies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its m&rits on the 19th day of December, 1904. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant and the Attorney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the Ignited States, residing in Bartow County, State of Georgia, where his decedent resided during the late war for the sumn-ession of the rebellion; that at different times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from his decedent quartermaster stores and commissriry supplies of the value of .$1,048.15, and appropriated the same to the use of the'United States Army, as follows: ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 75 1 mule $150. 00 1 horse 150. 00 150 bushels of corn 187.50 5 bushels of corn meal, at $1.25 6.25 360 pounds of flour, at 8 cents 28. 80 10 head of hogs, 1,250 pounds, at 8 cents 100. 00 14 head of hogs, 1,120 pounds, at 8 cents 89. 60 5 head of beef cattle, 1,250 pounds, at 8 cents 100.00 800 pounds of bacon, at 20 cents 116.00 1 two-horse wagon 120.00 Total 1 1, 048. 15 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in the county of Bartow, State of Georgia, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of seven hundred and five dollars ($705), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court, Filed December 22, 1904. A true copy. Test this 7th day of January, 1905. [SEAL.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MATILDA J. SJIITH. [Coui-t of Claims. Congressional, No. 7474. Matilda J. Smith, widow of Melvin J. Smith, V. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Melvin J. Smith, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed March 13, 1893. [Court of Claims. Congressional ease No. 7474. Matilda .J. Smith, widow of Melvin J. Smith, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the nth day of March, 1890. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 13th day of March, 1893, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of December, 1904. George A. and William B. King, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by F. De C. Faust, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : That Melvin J. Smith, claimant's decedent, was during the civil war a resi- dent of the State of Georgia, and did not give any aid or comfort to the said rebellion, but was throughout that war loyal to the Government of the United States. 76 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. That the following property belonging to claimant's decedent was taken from him by the United States Army and used by the said Army, the date, place, and command being particularly stated below : In Whitfleld County, in the State of Georgia, on or about the dates and by the United States forces hereinafter mentioned, to wit : Taken May 7 or 8, 1864, by General Howard's division : 1 mare $150. 00 Pasture of 10 acres of wheat 70. 00 60 dozen bundles oats 60.00 Taken in the fall of 1864 by Construction Corps : 1 cow, 250 pounds, 10 cents per pound 25. 00 Taken in the fall of 1864 by General Hood's command : 2 fat hogs, 150 and 100 pounds, respectively 37. 50 20 bushels of corn 30. 00 300 feet of good lumber 4. 50 Total 442.00 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OF FACT. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion there was taken from the claimant's decedent in Whitfield County, State of Georgia, by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property as above described, which at the time and place was reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and ninety-five dollars ($295). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed January 3, 1905. A true copy. Test this 16th day of January, 1905. [seal.] Archibald Hopkins, Chief Cleric. S. INMAN, ADMINISTRATOR OF JACOB B. RUSSELL. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12372. S. Inman, administi-ator of Jacob B. Russell, deceased, v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Jacob B. Russell, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed January 14, 1907. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 12372. S. Inman. administrator of the estate of Jacob B. Russell, v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court bv the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 19th day of May, 1906. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 14th day of January, 1907, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, Avas loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 9th day of April, 1907. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 77 Louis A. Pradt, esq., appeared for claimant, aud the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the intersts of the United States. The claim.int in his petition makes the following allegations : That he is the administrator of the estate of Jacob B. Russell, deceased, duly appointed by letters of administration, which he brings into court; that peti- tioner's decedent, Jacob B. Russell, was, during the late war for the suppres- sion of the rebellion, a citizen of the United States residing near Ringgold, in the State of Georgia, and did not give any aid or comfort to said rebellion, but was loyal throughout that war to the Government of the United States. That the following property of the decedent was taken from the possession of said decedent upon his farm near said Ringgold in the month of December, 186.3, by the military forces of the United States, acting under due authority and for the use and benefit of the United States, said forces being a part of the Army of the United States under the command of General Sherman, namely : 7 horses, at $200 $1,400 1 mule, at $250 250 4 cows, at $50 200 15 head of cattle, at $30 450 4 oxen, at $75 300 50 sheep, at $5 250 50 hogs, at $20 1,000 4,000 pounds of pork and lard, at 20 cents 800 200 bushels of wheat, at $1.50 300 1,500 bushels of corn, at $1.25 1, 875 200 bushels of oats, at $1 200 30 tons of hay, at $25 750 15 barrels of flour, at $10 150 Lumber and shingles sufficient to build a 5-room cottage, the rooms each 16 feet square 1,000 Total___ 8,925 That no payment for said property nor any part of it was then made nor has since been made; that the said Jacob B. Russell presented his claim for the value of said property to the Southern Claims Commission, who rejected the same in 1880 on the ground that they were not satisfied with the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the loyalty of the claimant; that on the 19th day of May, 1906, the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives of the United States referred this claim to the Court of Claims under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1883, known as the Bowman Act. This petition was veri- fied by the claimant. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the arguments and briefs of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OF FACT. There was taken from the claimant's decedent in Ringgold County, Ga., during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character described in the petition, the reasonable value of which at the time and place of taking was the sum of three thousand two hundred and ten dollars ($3,210.00). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed April 22, 1907. A true copy. Test this 27th day of November, A. D. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 78 AI/LOWANCE or CEETAIN CLAIMS. W. C. WALDEOP. ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12261. W. C. Waldrop, administrator of the es- tate of Millington Waldrop, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court March 31, 1906, by resolution of the House of Representatives, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : " A BILL For the relief of W. C. Waldrop, administrator of the estate of Millington Waldrop, deceased. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay W. C. Waldrop, administrator of the estate of Millington Waldrop, deceased, late of Paulding County, Georgia, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of five thousand dollars, being for stores and supplies alleged to have been furnished the Army of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion." The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 17th day of December, 1906. . G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the ITuited States. The claimant in his petition makes tbe following allegations : That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Paulding County, State of Georgia, where his decedent resided during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion ; that during said period there was taken from his decedent in said county and State by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, property of the kind and value following, and appropriated to the use of the Army, to wit : Item 1. 30f bushels of corn $30. 75 Item 2. 3 milk cows 100.00 Item 3. 1 yoke of oxen 100.00 Item 4. 20 head of hogs 200.00 Item 5. 10 head of sheep 20.00 Item 6. 100 bushels of corn 100.00 Item 7. 300 pounds of bacon 45. 00 Item 8. 1 saddle and 1 bridle 15.00 Item 9. 2 mules 250.00 Item 10. 3,000 rails 30.00 Item 11. 25 acres of growing crops, corn, etc 125.00 Total 1, 015. 75 (Taken in JNIay, 1864, by General Sherman's command.) The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argu- ments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant's decedent, Millington Waldrop, deceased, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During said war the military forces of the United States, by proper au- thority, for the use of the Army, took from claimant's decedent in Paulding County, State of Georgia, property as above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of six hundred and forty-one dollars ($641), uo part of which appears to have been paid. III. On the subject of laches, it appears that claimant's decedent presented a claim for settlement in 1867, and that an agent was sent to investigate it. By the Couet. Filed January 14, 1907. A true copy. Test this 23d day of January, 1907. [SEAL.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 79 ILLINOIS. MARTHA J. BOWEN, WIDOW. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-14. Martha J. Bowen, widow of Edwin A. Bowen, deceased, c. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st of January, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Lasalle, in the State of Illinois, and is the widow of Edwin A. Bowen, deceased. 2. That said Edwin A. Bowen, being the lieutenant-colonel of the Fifty-second Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Illinois as colonel thereof on February 20, 1S64 ; and that from and after February 26, 1SG4, the said Edwin A. Bowen assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until October 2G, 1864, when he was mustered out as lieutenant-colonel; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said Edwin A. Bowen was refused muster and recogni- tion in the grade of colonel during said period. 3. That during said period the said Edwin A. Bowen was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of colonel. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Martha J. Bowen, widow of Edwin A. Bowen, deceased, the claimant of this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Lasalle, in the State of Illinois. 2. On February 26, 1864, Edwin A. Bowen was lieutenant-colonel of the Fifty-second Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on October 24, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., p. 734.) The colonel of said Fifty-second Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel devolved upon said Edwin A. Bowen, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of colonel of said Fifty-second Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry until October 24, 1864, when mustered out as lieutenant-colonel. The governor of the State of Illinois also issued to said Edwin A. Bowen a commission as colonel Fifty-second Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry, 3. On the said February 26, 1864, the mustering offlcer then and thereafter refused to muster the said Edwin A. Bowen as colonel of said Fifty-second Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of colonel until he was mustered out of the service as lieutenant-colonel October 24, 1864. 4. If the said Edwin A. Bowen should be deemed colonel of the Fifty-second Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel, which he has received, and that of a colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered from the period from February 26, 1864, to October 24, 1864, would amount to $221.80, without any deduction for Income tax as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, Including short payments of $13.70 er- roneuosly deducted for income tax on remuster settlement. 80 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 5. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $8.40, leaving a balance of two hundred and thirteen dollars and forty cents ($213.40). By the Court. Filed January 21, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 24th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. BENNETT DEPENBROCK. [In the. Court of Claims. No. 10655, Congressional. Bennett Depenbrock v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASK. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of Janu- ary, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-Gen- eral, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, api^ared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Ma- rion, in the State of Illinois. 2. That he, being the chief trumpeter of Company H, Second Regiment of In- diana Volunteer Cavalry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Indiana as second lieutenant thereof on June 30, 1863 ; and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until June 22, 1864, when he was mustered in as second lieutenant ; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recog- nition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- ances of a chief trumpeter, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidences and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. Bennett Depenbrock, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Marion in the State of Illinois. II. On June 30, 1863, the said claimant was chief trumpeter of Company H, Second Regiment Indiana Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on June 22, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The second lieutenant of said Company H, Second Regiment Indiana Volun- teer Cavalry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter as- sumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company H. Second Regiment Indiana Volunteer Cavalry, until mustered into the servicers such Jinie 22, 1864. The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a commis- sion as second lieutenant Company H, Second Regiment Indiana ^'olunteer Cav- alry. III. On the said June 30, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter re- fused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company H, Second Regiment Indiana Volunteer Cavalry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such as aforesaid. IV. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from June 30, 1863, to June 22, 1864, this claimant employed a servant not enlisted. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 8l V. During said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Govern- ment. VI. If the said Bennett Depenbrock should be deemed second lieutenant of Company H, Second Regiment Indiana Volunteer Cavalrj% and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as chief trumpeter which he has received and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from June 30, 1863, to June 22, 1S64, would amount to $952.19, without making any deduction for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. VII. Income tax would amount to $22.39, and, if to be deducted, would leave $929.80 (nine hundred and twenty-nine dollars and eighty cents). By the Couet. Filed January 15, 1906. A true copy. Test this 17th day of January, 1906. [seal.] , John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. THOMAS O. EDDIXS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-46. Thomas O. Eddins r. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the ISth day of March, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-Gen- eral, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Pike in the State of Illinois. 2. That he. being the sergeant-major, Eighth Regiment of Missouri Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Missouri as first lieutenant thereof on September 22, 1863; and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until January 14, 1864, when he was mustered in as such ; said regiment was continu- ously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of first lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- ances of a sergeaut-major although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of first lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Thomas O. Eddius. the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Pike in the State of Illinois. 2. On September 22, 1863, the said Thomas O. Eddins was sergeant-major of the Eight Regiment Missouri Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he wai mustered into the service, to wit, on January 14, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the AVar Department of June 20. 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The first lieutenant of said Company I, Eighth Regiment Missouri Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of first lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of first lieutenant of said Company I, Eighth Regiment Missouri Volunteer Infantry. The governor of the State of Missouri also issued to this claimant a commis- sion as first lieutenant Company I, Eighth Regiment Missouri Volunteer In- fantry. H. Rep. 543, 60-1 6 82 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 3. On the said September 22, 1863. the musteriug officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as first lieutenant of said Company I, Eighth Regiment Missouri Volunteer Infantrs*, solely because his command was below its minimum strength as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of first lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such, January 14, 1864. 4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from September 23, 1S63, to January 12, 1864, this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 5. During said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Govern- ment. 6. If the said Thomas O. Eddius should be deemed first lieutenant of Company I, Eighth Regiment Missouri Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a sergeant-major, which he has received, and that of a first lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from September 23, 1S63, to Janailry 12, 1864, woiild amount to $227.90 (two hundred and twenty-seven dollars and ninety cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. By the Court. Filed March 18, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 19th day of March, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MARY J. ELY, WIDOW. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-48. Mary J. Ely, widow of Ben.iamin F. Ely, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of January, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney- General, by James A. Tanner, esq., bis assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Coles, in the State of Illinois, and is the widow of Benjamin F. Ely, deceased. 2. That said Benjamin F. Ely, being the sergeant of Company A, Fifth Regi- ment of Ohio Volunteer Cavalry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Ohio as second lieutenant thereof on September 4, 1865; and that from and after May 1, ]S65, the said Benjamin F. Ely assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until November 14, 1865, when he was mustered out as sergeant; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said Benjamin F. Ely was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period the said Benjamin F. E]ly was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Mary J. Ely, widow of Benjamin F. Ely, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Coles, in the State of Illinois. 2. On May 1, 1865, Benjamin F. Ely was sergeant of Company A, Fifth Regi- ment of Ohio Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on No\-ember 14. 1865. the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1803, carrying into efCect section 20 of the act of Con- gress approved March 3. 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 83 The second lieutenant of said Company A, Fifth Regiment Ohio Volunteer Cavalry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved ujDon said Benjamin F. Ely, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company A, Fifth Regiment Ohio Volunteer Cavalry, until November 14. 1865. The governor of the State of Ohio also issued to said Benjamin F. Ely a com- mission as second lieutenant, Company A, Fifth Regiment of Ohio Volunteer Cavalry. 3. On the said May 1, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster the said Benjamin F. Ely as second lieutenant of said Company A, Fifth Regiment of Ohio Volunteer Cavalry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered out of the service as sergeant November 14, 1865. 6. If the said Benjamin F. Ely should be deemed second lieutenant of Com- pany A, Fifth Regiment of Ohio Volunteer Cavalry, and entitled to tlie pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been nuistered from the period of May 1, 1865, to November 14, 1865, would amount to $259.68 without any deduction for income tax as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to .$18.28. leaving two hun- dred and forty-six dollars and forty cents ($246.40). By the Court. Filed January 21, 1007. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 23d day of January, ]007. [seal.] ' John Randolph, Assistant Clerk ('oiirt of Claims. BENJAMIN S. FORD. [In the Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 10674. Benjamin S. Ford v. The United States. ]- STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d dav of Decem- ber, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney- General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the County of Tazewell, in the State of Illinois. 2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company B, Sixth Regiment of Ken- tucky Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Kentucky as second lieutenant thereof on September 21, 1863, and as first lieutenant December 31, 1863, and that from and after said dates he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grades until May 11, 1864, when he was mustered in as first lieutenant; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grades of second lieutenant and first lieutenant during said period. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- ances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant and first lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Benjamin S. Ford, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Tazewell, in the State of Illinois. 2. On September 21, 1863, the said claimant was first sergeant of Company B, Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was 84 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. mustered out as sucli, to wit, on May 11, 1864, tlie same was aud continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Con- gress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The second lieutenant of said Company B, Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volun- teer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company B, Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, until promoted to be first lieu- tenant December 31, 1863, when he assumed and performed the duties of first lieutenant until mustered in as such May 11, 1864. The govern6r of the State of Kentucky also issued to this claimant com- missions as second lieutenant and first lieutenant Company B, Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said September 21 and December 31, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant and first lieutenant of said Company B, Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of his respective grades until he was mustered in the service as first lieutenant May 11, 1864. 4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from September 21, 1863, to May 11, 1864, this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 5. During said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Govern- ment. 6. If the said Benjamin S. Ford should be deemed second lieutenant and first lieutenant of Company B, Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of those grades, the difference between his pay and allow- ances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant and first lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the periods from September 21. as second lieutenant, and December 31, 1863, as first lieutenant, would amount to $330.43, including $14.99 deducted on a re- muster settlement September 29, 1891, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 7. Income tax would amount to $7.98 and $14.99, and if these amounts should be deducted, the balance would be three hundred and seven dollars and forty-six cents ($307.46). By the Court. Filed December 3, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 6th day of December, 1906. [SEAL.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claitns. JAMES P. FILES AND OTHERS. [Court of Claims. No. 10673. James r. Files, son, and Alice White, granddaughter, sole heirs of James P. Files, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives ou the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 14th day of Jan- uai*y, 1907. IVIessrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimants and the Attorney- General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations: 1. That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Wayne, in the State of Illinois, and are the sole heirs at law of James P. Files, deeea sed. 2. That said James P. Files being the captain of Company H, Fifty-sixth Reg- iment Illinois Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Illinois as major thereof on June 23, 1864, and that on and after July 7, 1864. the said James P. Files assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until February 15, 1865, when he was mustered in as major; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 85 by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said James P. Files was refused muster and recognition in the grade of major during said loeriod. 3. That during said period the said James P. Files was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a captain, although he was in the continuous per- formance of the duties of major. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasuiy Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. James P. Files and Alice White, the claimants in this case, are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Wayne, in the State of Illinois. 2. On July 7, ISGl, James P. Files was captain of Company H, Fifty-sixth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on February 15, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 186.3, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Con- gress approved March 3, 1862. (12 Stat.' L., 734.) The major of said Fifty-sixth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of major devolved upon said James P. Files, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of major of said Fifty-sixth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry until February 15, 1865, when mustered in. He died in service March 31. 1865. The governor of the State of Illinois also issued to said James P. Files a commission as major. Fifty-sixth Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said July 7, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster the said James P. FilQS as major of said Fifty-sixth Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of major until he was mustered into the service as such, February 15. 1865. 4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from July 7, 1864, to February 15, 1865, the said James P. Files employed one servant, not enlisted. 5. During said period the said James P. Files did not draw rations from the Government. 6. If the said James P. Files should be deemed major of Fifty-sixth Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the differ- ence between his pay and allowances as a captain which he has received and that of a major to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered from the period from July 7, 1864, to February 14, 1865, would amount to $80.01 without any deduction for income tax. as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, and including a short payment of $7.84. 7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $3.63, leaving a balance of seventy-six dollars and thirty-eight cents ($76.38). By the Court. Filed January 14, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 17th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. WILLIAM T. GLENN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-55. William T. Glenn v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on W^ar Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the coimty of Cook, in the State of Illinois. 86 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 2. That he, beiug the first sergeant of Company G, Thirty-first Regiment of Indiana Vohniteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the gov- ernor of the State of Indiana as second lieutenant thereof on Jmie 1, 1865, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until January 9, 1866, when he was mustered out as first sergeant; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason and no other he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- ances of a first sergeant, although he was in the- continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. William T. Glenn, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Cook, in the State of Illinois. 2. On June 1, 1865, the said William T. Glenn was first sergeant of Company G, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on January 9, 1866, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). The second lieutenant of said Company G, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Vol- unteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and there- after assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Com- pany G, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, until January 9, 1866. The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a com- mission as second lieutenant, Company G, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volun- teer Infantry. 3. On the said June 1, 1865, the mustering otficer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company 6, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered out of the service as first sergeant, January 9, 1866. 4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from June 1, 1865, to January 9, 1866, this claimant employed no private servant, not enlisted. 5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. 6. If the said William T. Glenn should be deemed second lieutenant of Com- pany G, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first ser- geant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from June 1, 1865, to January 9, 1866, would amount to $334.75 (three hundred and thirty-four dol- lars anci seventy-five cents), without any deduction for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. By the Court. Filed March 11, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 13th day of March, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. WILLIAM HANNA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-80. William Hauua c. The United States.] statement OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Connnittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May. 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of Mai-ch, 1907. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS.. 87 Messrs. Peuuebaker aud Jones appeared for tiie claimant and tlie Attorney- General, by James A. Tanner, esq,, his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for'the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Adams, in the State of Illinois. 2. That he, being the lieutenant-colonel in command of the Fiftieth Regi- ment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Illinois as colonel thereof on June 11, 1864, and that from and after June 19, 1864, he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until July 13, 1865, when he was mustered out as lieutenant- colonel ; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law, and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of colonel during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- ances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of colonel. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. William Hanna, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Adams, in the State of Uluois. 2. On June 19, 1864, the said William Hanna was lieutenant-colonel t)f the Fiftieth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry- On that date and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on July 20. 186.5, the same was and con- tinued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 Of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The colonel of said Fiftieth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed aud performed all the duties of colonel of said Fiftieth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry. The governor of the State of Illinois also issued to this claimant a commis- sion as colonel Fiftieth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said June 19, 1864, the mustering officer then aud thereafter re- fused to muster this claimant as colonel of said Fiftieth Regiment Illinois Vol- unteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of colonel until he was mustered the service as lieutenant-colonel July 20, 1865. 4. If the said William Hanna should be deemed colonel of the Fiftieth Regi- ment Illinois Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel, -s^'hich he has received, and that of a colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from June 20, 1864, to July 20, 1865, would amount to $395.57 (three hundred and ninety-five dollars and fifty-seven cents), as re- ported by the Auditor for the War Department, including a deduction of $2.87 income tax on remuster. By the Court. Filed March 11, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 13th day of March, 1907. [seal.] .John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ANNIE MAHAR. [Court of Claims. No. 10729. Congressional. Annie Mahar," widow (remarried) of Theodore S. Loveland v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of Jan- uary, 1906. 88 jaAjOWA:scB or certaix claims. Messrs. Penueliaker & .Joues appeared for the claimant, auci tlie Attoruey- General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Cook, in the State of Illinois, and is the widow (remarried) of Theodore S. Loveland, deceased. 2. That said Theodore S. Loveland, being the first sergeant of Company F, Twenty-second Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Iowa as second lieutenant thereof on March 2S, 1864 ; and that from and after said date the said Theodore S. Loveland assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until May 2, 1865, when he was mustered out as first sergeant ; said regiment was continu- ously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said "Theodore S. Loveland was refused muster and recog- nition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period the said Theodore S. Loveland was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of coimsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FxVCT. 1. Annie Mahar, widow (remarried) of Theodore S. Loveland, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Cook, in the State of Illinois. 2. On March 28, 1864, Theodore S. Loveland was first sergeant of Company F, Twenty-second Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on May 2, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of .Tune 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress, approved ISIarch 3, 1S63""(12 Stat. L., p. 734). The second lieutenant of said Company F, Twenty-second Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon said Theodore S. Loveland, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company F, Twenty-second Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, until final discharge, May 2, 1865. The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to said Theodore S. Loveland a commission as second lieutenant Company F, Twenty-second Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said INIarch 28, 1864, the mustering oflieer then and thereafter refused to inuster the said Theodore S. Loveland as second lieutenant of said Company F, Twenty-second Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantrj-, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he con- tinued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered out of the service as first sergeant, as aforesaid. 4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from March 28, 1864, to May 2, 1865, the said Theodore S. Loveland employed no servant not enlisted. 5. During said period the said Theodore S. Loveland did draw rations from the Government. 6. If the said Theodore S. Loveland should be deemed second lieutenant of Company F, Twenty-second Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered, from the period from March 28, 1864, to May 2, 1865, would amount to $590.39. without making any deductions for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 7. Income tax would amount to $28.60, and if to be deducted would leave $561.79 (five hundred and sixty-one dollars and seventy-nine cents.) By the Court. Filed January S, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 17th day of January, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 89 ORRIN L. MANN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-116. Orrin L. Mann v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in tile above-eutitled case was transmitted to tlie court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of January, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- eral, by James A, Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Ver- milion, in the State of Illinois. 2. That he, being the lieutenant-colonel of Thirty -ninth Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Illinois as colonel thereof on June 6, 1S65, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of May 11, 1S65, grade until December 16, 1865, when he was mustered out as lieutenant-colonel : said regi- ment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regu- lation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of colonel during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- ances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of colonel. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Orrin L. Mann, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Vermilion, in the State of Illinois. 2. On May 11, 1S65, the said Orrin L. Mann, was lieutenant-colonel of Thirty- ninth Regiment Illinois Volr.nteer Infantry. On that date and until he was ums- tered out of the service, to wit, on December 16, 1805. the same was and con- tinued to be below minimum number prescribed 1)y General Orders. No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The colonel of said Thirty-ninth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of colonel of said Thirty-ninth Regiment Illinois "^'olunteer Infantry until mustered out December 16, 1865. The governor of the State of Illinois also issued to this claimant a commission as colonel Thirty-ninth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said May 11, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as colonel of said Twenty -ninth Regiment Illinois Vol- unteer Infantrj', soleley because his connuand was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of colonel until he was mustered out of the service as lieutenant-colonel. 4. If the said Orrin L. Mann should be deemed colonel of the Thirty-ninth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel, which he has received, and that of a colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from May 11, 1865, to December 16, 1865, would amount to $283.35, without any deduction for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, including a short payment of $9.19. 5. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $13.70, leaving a balance of two hundred and sixty-nine dollars and sixty-five cents ($269.65). By THE Court. Filed January 21, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 24th day of January, 1907. [SEAL.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 90 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. JOHN E. MULLALY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12640-21. John B. Mullaly v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim iu the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 16th day of June, 1906. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of April, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker «& Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Cook, in the State of Illinois. 2. That he, being the first lieutenant of Company F, Seventeenth Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Massachusetts as captain thereof on December 29, 1863, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until May 13, 1864, when he was mustered in as such ; said regi- ment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and reg- ulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recogni- tion in the grade of captain during said period. He was in like manner duly appointed major June 16, 1865, but was refused muster for same reason. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- ance of a first lieutenant and captain, although he was in the continuous per- formance of the duties of captain and major. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACTS. 1. John E. Mullaly, th,e claimant iu this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Cook, in the State of Illinois. 2. On December 29, 1863, the said John E. Mullaly was first lieutenant of Company F, Seventeenth Regiment Masschusetts Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on May 13, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by Gen- (:ral Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. I^., 734). He was appointed major of said regiment June 16, 1865, but refused muster for same reason. The captain and major of said Seventeenth Regiment Massachusetts Volun- teer Infantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of captain from December 29, 1863, and major after June 16, 1865, devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of said grades of Seventeenth Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry. The governor of the State of Massachusetts also issued to this claimant a commission as captain Company F, and major Seventeenth Regiment Massa- chusetts Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said December 20, 1863. and June 16, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as captain or major of Seventeenth Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of captain and major until he was mustered in as cap- tain on May 13, 1864, and mustered out as such July 28, 1865. 4. If the said John E. Mullaly should be deemed captain, Seventeenth Mas- sachusetts Infantry, from December 29, 1863, and major of said regiment from June 16. 1865, and entitled to the pay of those grades, the difterence between his pay and allowances as a first lieutenant and captain, which he has i-eceived, and that of a captain and major, to wliich he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from December 29, 1863, to July 28, 1865, would ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 91 amount to $99.30 (uiuety-uine dollars and thirty cents), as i-eported by the Auditor for the War Department, including a short payment of $24.63. By THE Court. Filed April 22, 1907. A true copy of the findings of facts as filed by the court. Test this 24th day of April, 1907. [seal.] « John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. FANNIE PEMBERTON. [In the United States Court of Claims. No. 11171, Congressional. Fannie Pemberton v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. On December 10, 1901, bill H. R. 5720 was introduced in Congress for the re- lief of this claimant, said bill reading as follows : [H. R. 5720, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] " A BILL for the relief of Fannie Pemberton. ''Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the sum of four thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of the money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Fannie Pemberton, of Hamilton County, Illinois, formerly Fannie Glass, for a wharf boat taken from her by the Army of the United States, at Golcouda, Illinois, in the year eighteen hundred and sixty- two." On the 20th day of February, 1902, House resolution No. IBS, covering bill H. R. 5720 for the relief of claimant, was passed, the same being as follows : [Resolution No. 138, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] ''Resolved, That the bill (H. R. 5720) for the relief" of Fannie Pemberton, with all the accompanying papers, be, and the same is hereby, referred to the Court of Claims for a finding of facts under the terms of the act of ^Nlarch third, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, and generally known as the " Tucker Act." The claimant appeared and filed her petition in this court July S, 1903, in which she makes the following allegations : 1. That she is a citizen of the United States, and during the period of the late war of the rebellion, from 1S61 to 1S65, she was living at Golcouda, 111., and was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war, and did not give aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States. 2. That during the year 1862 claimant was the owner of a wharf boat which was engaged in active service on the river at said place. That the said wharf boat was equipped for service and in first-class condition at that time. That in February, 1862, a body of United States troops came to Golcouda from Smith- land, Ky., and took possession of claimant's said wharf boat and took the same from claimant for the purpose of transporting troops, supplies, guns, etc., for the benefit of the United States Army. That said boat was taken, as- claimant believes, to Paducah, Ky., and from there to other points, and was never re- turned to claimant. 8. The said wharf boat cost the claimant the sum of $4,000 and was well worth that sum of money. That no payment was ever made therefor to the claimant or her representatives, and said wharf boat was never returned to claimant. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT, I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant, Fannie Pemberton, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the sup- pression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of a wharf boat belonging to claimant, in Goleonda, State of Illinois, and used 92 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAUsT CLAIMS. the same for the purpose of transporting troops, supplies, etc., and. never re- turned the same. Said wharf boat was reasonably worth the sum of four thou- sand dollars ($4,000). No payment appears to have been made therefor. III. It does not appear that any claim was presented to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the provisions of the Tucker Act. No evidence has been offered by claim- ant under said reference " bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in presenting the claim * * * and no facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed and which shall excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy." By the Court. Filed January 9, 1905. A true copy. Test this 11th day of January, 1905. [sEAx.] ' Archibald Hopkins, Chief Clerk. CARRIE M. PERSONS, EXECUTRIX OF WILLIAM STUBBS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169. Carrie M. Persons, executrix of William Stubbs, deceased, i'. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE, The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 2Tth day of March, 1906. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Cook, in the State of Illinois, and is the executrix of William Stubbs, deceased. 2. That said William Stubbs, being the major of the Eighth Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Iowa as colonel thereof on July 1, 1865 ; and that from and after said date the said William Stubbs assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until November 15, 1865, when he was mustered out as major : said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said William Stubbs was refused muster and recognition in the grade of colonel during said period. 3. That during said period the said William Stubbs was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a major, although he was in the continuous per- formance of the duties of colonel. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Carrie M. Persons, executrix of William Stubbs, deceased, the claimant of this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Cook, in the State of Illinois. 2. On July 1, 1865, William Stubbs was major of the Eighth Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infan.try. On that date and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on November 15, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War De- partment of June 20, 186.3. carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The colonel of said Eighth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel devolved upon said William Stubbs. who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of colonel of said Eighth Regiment Iowa "S'olunteer Infantry. The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to said William Stubbs a com- mission as colonel, Eighth Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 93 3. On the said July 1, 1S65, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster the said William Stubbs as colonel of said Eighth Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of colonel until he was mustered out of the service as major, November 15, 1865. 4. If the said William Stubbs should be deemed colonel of the Eighth Regi- ment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the dif- ference between his pay and allowances as a major, which he has received, and that of a colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered from the period from July 1, 1S65, to November 15, 1865, would amount to four hundred and eleven dollars and seventeen cents ($411.17), including short payment of $1.50 and 75 cents income tax erroneously deducted, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. By the Court. Filed March 11, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the coiirt. Test this 13th day of March, 1907. [seal.] JtjHN Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. NANNIE L. SCHMITT. WIDOW OF VriLLIAM A. SCHMITT. [Court of Claims, Congressional. No. 12169-154. Nannie L. Schmitt, widow of William A. Schmitt, deceased, v. The United States.] stat)<:ment of case. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27th day of March, 1906. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations. : 1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Cook, in the State of Illinois, and is the widow of William A. Schmitt, deceased. 2. That said William A. Schmitt, being a lieutenant-colonel of Twenty-seventh Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Illinois as colonel thereof on April 28, 1864, and that from and after said date the said William A. Schmitt assumed and per- formed all the duties of his said grade until September 20, 1864, when he was mustered out as lieutenant-colonel; said raiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said William A. Schmitt was refused muster and recognition in the grade of colonel during said period. 3. -That during said period the said William A. Schmitt was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the con- tinuous performance of the duties of colonel. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Nannie L. Schmitt, widow of William A. Schmitt, deceased, the claimant of this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident of the countj^ of Cook, in the State of Illinois. 2. On April 28, 1864, William A. Schmitt was lieutenant-colonel Twenty- seventh Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on September 20, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182, of the War Department of June 30, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). The colonel of said Twenty-seventh Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel devolved upon said William A. Schmitt, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of colonel of said Twenty-seventh Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry. 94 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The governor of the State of Illinois also issued to said William A. Schmitt a commission as colonel Twenty-seventh Regiment of Illinois Yolnnteer Infantry. 3. On the said April 28, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter re- fused to muster the said William A. Schmitt as colonel of said Twenty-seventh Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of colonel until he was mustered out of the service as lieutenant-colonel September 20, 1864. 4. If the said William A. Schmitt should be deemed colonel Twenty-seventh Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel, which he has received, and that of a colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered from the period from April 28, 1864, to September 20, 1864, would amount to $129.25 (one hundred and twenty-nine dollars and twenty- five cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, including short payments aggregating $6.72. By the Court. Filed March 11, 1907. A true copv of the findings of fact as filed bv the court. Test this 1.3th day of March, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOHN H. STIBBS. t Court of Claims. ' Congressional. Nos. 12169-12173. John H. Stibbs v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27th day of March, 1906. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Cook, in the State of Illinois. 2. That he, being the lieutenant-colonel of the Twelfth Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Iowa as colonel thereof on February 11, 1865 ; and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until September IS, 1865, when he was mustered in as such : said regiment was con- tinuously below the minimum number jirescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of colonel during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- ances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of colonel. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. John H. Stibbs, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Cook, in the State of Illinois. 2. On February 11, 1865, the said John H. Stubbs was lieutenant-colonel of the Twelfth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered into the service — to wit, on September 18, 1SG5 — the same was and con- tinued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrving into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., p. 734.) The colonel of said Twelfth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantrj' being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel developed upon this ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 95 claimant, who then and thereafter assnmecl and performed all the duties of colonel of said Twelfth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to this claimant a connuission as colonel Twelfth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said February 11, 3865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as colonel of said Twelfth Regiment Iowa Vol- unteer Infantry, solely because his conmiand was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of colonel until he was mustered into the service as such, September 18, 1865. 4. If the said John H. Stibbs should be deemed colonel of the Twelfth Regi- ment Iowa Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the differ- ence between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel which he has re- ceived and that of a colonel to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from February 11, 1865, to September 17, 1865, would amount to $216.18 (two hundred and sixteen dollars and eighteen cents) as re- ported by the Auditor for the War Department, including an erroneous stoppage of $1.78 'tax. By the Court. Filed March 11, l!l07. A true copy of the findings of fact as Hied by the court. Test this 13th day of March, ie/f)7. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOHN J. VINCENT. [Court of Claims. CongTessional, No. 11175. John J. Vincent v. The United States.] By resolution of the House of Representatives of April 1, 1902, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session, this case was referred to this court for findings of fact in accordance with the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, commonly known as the Tucker Act, said resolution reading as follows: ''Resolved, That the bill (H. R. 1764) for the relief of John J. Vincent, with all the accompanying papers, be, and the same is hereby, referred to the Court of Claims for a finding of facts under the terms of the act of March third, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, and generally known as the Tucker Act." The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 29th day of January, 1906. R. W. Haynes appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the de- fense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following- allegations : That he is a citizen of Williamson County, 111. ; that at the time of the break- ing out of the late war of the rebellion he was a resident of Dry Run, Tisho- mingo County, ?*Iiss., 9 miles northwest of Booneville, Miss. ; that he was" loyal to the Government of the United States from the commencement of said war until its close; that in the month of October, 1862, a portion of the Seventh Kansas Cavalry was encamped at Rienzi, in said Tishomingo County, and im- pressed claimant, together with a mule owned by claimant, into the services of said cavalry to guide and inspect the country ; that on returning to camp from said guide and inspection duty said mule was taken from him and appropriated by said cavalry and never returned to claimant; claimant was told that it would be reported to Quartermaster's Department, and that he would receive a voucher and pay therefor, but he never received any pay or compensation what- soever for the use and loss of said mule. , On the 5th day of November, 1862, cavalry belonging to the Seventh Kansas and Fifth Ohio Regiments became engaged in a skirmish fight with some guer- rillas in the northwest portion of said. Tishomingo Comity, Miss., and claimant and his wagon and two yoke of oxen were impressed into service to carry the remains of a wounded Union soldier some 12 miles, and after returning to camp his wagon and oxen were appropriated to the service of the United States troops. That the two yoke of oxen (consisting of four steers) were from 5 to 6 years old, good-sized cattle, and in good condition, and that the soldiers of said regiments butchered them for beef, and they were used by the Quarter- master's Department for the purpose of feeding the Union soldiers encamped at and around Rienzi, Miss. 96 ALLOWAK-CE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. That afterwards, to wit, the 15th of November, 1862, the Fifth Ohio Cavalry encamped at Camp Davis, iu said Tishomingo County, Miss., came to claimant's house and took 14 bushels of corn. When claimant asked for pay, he was told by the Federal troops that they would report it to the Quartermaster's Depart- ment. The claimant avers that the property so taken was valued as follows : One mule $200.00 One wagon taken 50.00 Two yoke of oxen 200.00 Fourteen bushels of corn, at 60 cents a bushel 8.40 Total 458. 40 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OF FACTS. I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant was loyal to the Govern- ment of the United States during the war of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, in Tishomingo County, State of Mississippi, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took property of the kind and character described iu the petition, the property of the claimant, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and eighty-two dollars ($282), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Cotjet. Filed February 5, 1906. A true copy. Test this 13th day of February, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. INDIANA. LEWIS J. BLAIR. [Court of Claims. CoDgressional, No. 12169-5. Lewis J. Blair v. The United States.} statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of April, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Dekalb, in the State of Indiana. 2. That he. being the major of the Eighty-eighth Regiment of Indiana Vol- unteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Indiana as lieutenant-colonel thereof on October 30, 1863 ; and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until June 14. 1865, when he was mustered out as major; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regula- tion, and for this reason, and no other, he Avas refused muster and recognition in the grade of lieutenant-colonel during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- ances of a major, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of lieutenant-colonel. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of coiuisel, the court makes the following ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. - 97 FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Lewis J. Blair, the claimant in tliis case, is a citizen of the Ignited States and resident in the county of Deljalb, in the State of Indiana. 2. On October 30, 1863, the said Lewis J. Blair was major of Eighty-eighth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mus- tered out of the service — to wit, on June 14, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The lieutenant-colonel of said Eighty-eighth Regiment Indiana Volunteer In- fantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of lieutenant-colonel devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter as- sumed and performed all the duties of lieutenant-colonel of said Eighty-eighth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a commis- sion as lieutenant-colonel Eighty-eighth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said October 30, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as lieutenant-colonel of said Eighty-eighth Regiment Indiana A'olunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of lieutenant-colonel until he was mustered out of the service as major June 14, 1865. 4. If the said Lewis J. Blair should be deemed lieutenant-colonel of the Eighty-eighth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a major, which he has received, and that of a lieutenant-colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from October 30, 1863, to June 14, 1865, would amount to $434.14 (four hundred and thirty-four dollars and four- teen cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, including $1.41 income tax deducted on remuster. By the Court. Filed April 22, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed bv the court. Test this 24th day of April, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SARAH E. SMITH AND GEORGE W. BROWNE, HEIRS OF THOMAS M. BROWNE. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-9. Sarali E. Smith and George W. Browne, brother and sister and sole heirs of Thomas M. Browne, deceased, v. The United States. ] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of April, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : 1. That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Randolph, in the State of Indiana, and are the brother and sister and sole heirs of Thomas M. Browne, deceased. 2. That said Thomas M. Browne, being the lieutenant-colonel of Seventh Regiment of Indiana Volunteer Cavalry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Indiana as x^olonel thereof on October 10, 1865 ; and that from and after said date the said Thomas M. Browne assumed and per- formed all the duties of his said grade until March 14, 1866, when he was mus- tered out as lieutenant-colonel ; said regiment was continuously below the mini- mum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said Thomas M. Browne was refused muster and recognition in the grade of colonel during said period. H. Rep. 543, 60-1 7 98 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 3. That during said period the said Thomas M. Browne was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a lientenant-colonel, although he was in the con- tinuous performance of the duties of colonel. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Sarah E. Smith and George W. Browne, the claimants of this case, are citizens of the United 'States and residents of the county of Randolph, in the State of Indiana. 2. On October 10, 1S65, Thomas M. Browne was lieutenant-colonel of Seventh Regiment of Indiana Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and until he was mus- tered out of the service, to wit, on March 14, 1866, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). The colonel of said Seventh Regiment Indiana Volunteer Cavalry being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel developed upon said Thomas M. Browne, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of colonel of said Seventh Regiment Indiana Volunteer Cavalry until he was mustered out as lieutenant-colonel, March 14, 1866. * The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to said Thomas M. Browne a commission as colonel Seventh Regiment of Indiana Volunteer Cavalry. 3. On the said October 10, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster the said Thomas M. Browne as colonel of said Seventh Regi- ment of Indiana Volunteer Cavalry solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of colonel until he was mustered out of the service as lieutenant-colonel, March 14, 1866. 4. If the said Thomas M. Browne should be deemed colonel of Seventh Regi- ment of Indiana Volunteer Cavalry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel, which he has received, and that of a colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered from the period from October 10, 1865, to March 14, 1866, would amount to $202.84 (two hundred and two dollars and eighty-four cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. By the Couet. Filed April 1, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 2d day of April, 1907. [SEAL.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. WILLIAM G. DUDLEY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-35. William G. Dudley v. Tlie United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of April, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant, in his petition, makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Sullivan, in the State of Indiana. 2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company D, Thirty-first Regiment of Indiana Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Indiana as second lieutenant thereof on June 1, 1865, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until January 9, 1866, when he was mustered out as first sergeant ; ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 99 said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- ances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. William G. Dudley, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Sullivan, in the State of Indiana. 2. On June 1, 1S65, the said William G. Dudley was first sergeant of Company D. Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on January 9, 1866, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182, of the War Department, of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The second lieutenant of said Company D, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company D, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, until mustered out as first sergeant January 9, 1866. The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a com- mission as second lieutenant Company D, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volun- teer Infantry. 3. On the said June 1, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter re- fused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company D, Thirty- first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered out of the service as first sergeant January 6, 1866. 4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from June 1, 1865, to January 9, 1866, this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 5. During said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Govern- ment. 6. If the said William G. Dudley should be deemed second lieutenant of Company D, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant which he has received and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from June 1, 1865, to January 9, 1866, would amoinit to $381.87 (three hundred and eighty- one dollars and eighty-seven cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. By the Court. Filed April 22, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 24th day of April, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOHN W. FOLAND. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-50. John W. Foland v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. 100 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Mad- ison, in the State of Indiana. 2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company E, Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the gov- ernor of the State of Indiana as first lieutenant thereof on June 1, 1865, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until February 20, 1866, when he was mustered out as first ser- geant ; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of first lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- ances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of first lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. John W. Foland, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of jMadison, in the State of Indiana. 2. On June 1, 1865, the said John W. Foland was first sergeant of Company E, Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on February 20, 1866, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., 734.) The first lieutenant of said Company E, Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of first lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of first lieutenant of said Company E, Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a commis- sion as first lieutenant. Company E, Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana Volun- teer Infantry. 3. On the said June 1, 1865, the mustering ofiicer then and thereafter re- fused to muster this claimant as first lieutenant of said Company E, Thirty- fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of first lieutenant until he was mustered out of the service as first sergeant, February 20, 1866. 4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from June 1, 1865, to February 20, - 1866, this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Govern- ment. 6. If the said John W. Foland should be deemed first lieutenant of Company E, Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference lietween his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a first lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from June 1, 1865, to February 20, 1866, would amount to $477.04 (four hundred and seventy- seven dollars and four cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War De- partment. By the Court. Filed March 11, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 13th day of IMarch, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims, ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIIST CLAIMS. 101 ANDREW G. GORRELL. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 106S7. Andrew G. Gorrell v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case wrs brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of November, 1905. Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Wells, in the State of Indiana. 2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company A, Thirty-fourth Regiment of Indiana Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the gov- ernor of the State of Indiana as second lieutenant thereof on September 1, 1865 ; and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until February 20, 1866, when he was finally discharged as first sergeant ; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number pre- scribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- ances of first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Andrew G. Gorrell, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Wells, in the State of Indiana. 2. On September 1, 1865, the said Andrew G. Gorrell was first sergeant of Company A, Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was discharged the service, to wit, on February 20, 1866, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department, of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The second lieutenant of said Company A, Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and there- after assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Com- pany A, Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, until February 20, 1866, when he was finally discharged. The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a commis- sion as second lieutenant. Company A, Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana Volun- teer Infantry. 3. On the said September 1, 1865, the mustering oflicer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company A, Thirty-fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, solely because his com- mand was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was discharged the service as first sergeant as aforesaid. 4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from September 1, 1865, to February 20, 1866, this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. 6. If the said Andrew G. Gorrell should be deemed second lieutenant of Com- pany A, Thirty -fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from September 1, 1865, to February 20, 1866, would amount to $264.71, without deduction of $25 bounty and $16.20 income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 102 ALLOWANCE or CERTAIIsr CLAIMS. 7. Income tax would amount to $16.20, and if to be deducted would leave $248.51. By the Court. Filed November 10, 1905. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 6th day of December, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk, Court of Claims. SILAS GRIMES. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-54. Silas Grimes v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the ISth day of March, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : _ 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Monroe, in the State of Indiana. 2. That he, being the captain of Company G, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Indiana as major thereof on November 22, 1864, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until January 7, 1SG5, when he was mustered in as such. Said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of major during said period. He was also commissioned lieutenant- colonel March 1.3, 1S65, but never mustered in for same reason. 3. That during said ])eriod he was allowed and paid only the pay and allow- ances of a captain and major, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of major and lieutenant-colonel. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Silas Grimes, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Monroe, in the State of Indiana. 2. On November 22, 1864, the said Silas Grimes was captain of Company G, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, and on March 13, 1865, he was major. On those dates and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, as major on January 7, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the mini- mum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrving into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., p. 734.) The major and lieutenant-colonel of said Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Vol- unteer Infantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grades the duties of major and lieutenant-colonel devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of major and lieutenant- colonel of said Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry imtil he was mustered in as major Januarv 7, 1865, and mustered out as such January 9, 1866. The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a commis- sion as major and lieutenant-colonel Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said dates the mustering oflicer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as major and lieutenant-colonel of said Thirty-first Regi- ment Indiana Volunteer Infantry solely because his command was below its minimum strength as aforesaid, although he continued to peform the duties of major and lieutenant-colonel until he was mustered out of the service asf major January 9, 1866. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIl^ CLAIMS. 103 4. If the said Silas Grimes should be deemed major and lientenaut-colonel of the Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of those grades the difference between his pay and allowances as a cap- tain, which he has received, and that of a major, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from November 22, 1864, to Janu- ary 6, 1S65, and between major and lieutenant-colonel from March 13, 18G5, and January 9, 1866, amount to $288.37 (two hundred and eighty-eight dollars and thirty-seven cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. By the Coukt. Filed March 18, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 19th day of March, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOHN W. HEADINGTON. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-86. John W. Headington v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27th day of March, 1906. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, by his assistant and under liis direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant, in his petition, makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Jay, in the State of Indiana. 2. That he, being the captain and major, One hundredth Regiment of Indiana Vol- unteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Indiana as major and lieutenant-colonel thereof on June 1, 1864, and May 21, 1865, respectively; and that from and after said dates he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grades until May 16, 1865, when mustered in as major, and on June 19, 1865, when he was mustered out as major; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed bylaw and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of major and lieutenant- colonel during said periods. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a captain and major, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of major and lieutenant-colonel. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. John W. Headington, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and a resident in the county of Jay, in the State of Indiana. 2. On June 1, 1864, the said John W. Headington was captain, and on May 21, 1865, he was major, One hundredth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On those dates and until he was mustered out of the service as major, to wit, on June 19, 1865, the same was, and continued to be, below the minimum number prescibed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L. , p. 734). The major and lieutenant-colonel of said One hundredth Regiment Indiana Volun- teer Infantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grades, the duties of major and lieutenant-colonel devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of major and lieutenant-colonel of said One hundredth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry until May 16, 1865, when mus- tered into service as major, and June 19, 1865, when mustered out as such. The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant commissions as major and lieutenant-colonel, One hundredth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said June 1, 1864, and May 21, 1865, the mustering officer then and there- after refused to muster this claimant as major and lieutenant-colonel of said One hundredth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of major and lieutenant-colonel until he was mustered into the service as major, May 16, 1865, and mustered out as such, June 19, 1865. 104 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 4. If the said John W. Headington should be deemed major and lieutenant-colonel of the One hundredth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a captain and major, which he has received, and that of a major and lieutenant-colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from June 1, 1864, to May 16, 1865, as major, and from May 21, 1865, to June 19, 1865, as lieutenant-colonel, would amount to $194.19 (one hundred and ninety-foiu' dollars and nineteen cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, including a short payment of $42.80 as captain. By the Court. Filed March 11, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 13th day of March, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. HIRAM HINES. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-76. Hiram Hines v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the coiu-t by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Hamil- ton, in the State of Indiana. 2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company H, Fifty-seventh Regiment of Indiana Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Indiana as second lieutenant thereof on June 1, 1865, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until Jan- uary 3, 1866, when he was mustered out as first sergeant. Said regiment was continu- ously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Hiram Hines, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resi- dent in the county of Hamilton, in the State of Indiana. 2. On June 1^ 1865, the said Hham Hines was first sergeant of Company H, Fifty- seventh Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mus- tered out of the service, to wit, on January 3, 1866, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Depart- ment of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., 734.) The second lieutenant of said Company H, Fifty-seventh Regiment Indiana_ Vol- unteer Infantry, Ijeing then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company H, Fifty-seventh Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, until January 3, 1866. The governer of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a commission as second lieutenant Company H, Fifty-seventh Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said Juno 1, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company H, Fifty-seventh Regi- ment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its mini- mum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered out of the service as first sergeant, January 3, 1866. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIISr CLAIMS. 105 4. If the said Hiram Hines should be deemed second lieutenant of Company H, Fifty-seventh Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a fu-st sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from June 1, 1865, to January 3, 1866, would amount to $309.45 (three hundred and nine dollars and forty-five cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. By the Court. Filed March 11, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 13th day of March, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. CYRUS J. McCOLE. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 121G9-130. Cyrus J. McCole v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the comt by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27th day of March, 1906. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his dhection, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: • 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Hamilton, in the State of Indiana. 2. That he, being the major of the Seventy-fifth Regiment of Indiana Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of In- diana as lieutenant-colonel thereof on April 1, 1864, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said gi-ade until June 16, 1865, when he was mustered out as major. Said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in tha grade of lieutenant-colonel during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a major, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of lieutenant- colonel. Upon the reports fm-nished by the War and Treasiuy Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the comt makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Cyrus J. McCole, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Hamilton, in the State of Indiana. 2. On April 1, 1864, the said Cyrus J. McCole was major of the Seventy-fifth Regi- ment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on June 16, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat.' L., p. 734). The lieutenant-colonel of said Seventy-fifth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry being then and thereafter out of ser^dce in said gi-ade, the duties of lieutenant-colonel devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of lieutenant-colonel of said Seventy-fifth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a commission as lieutenant-colonel Seventy-fifth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said April 1, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as lieutenant-colonel of said Seventy-fifth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of lieutenant-colonel until he was mustered out of the service as major, June 16, 1865. 4. If the said Cyrus J. McCole should be deemed lieutenant-colonel of the Seventy- fifth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a major, which he has received, and that of a lieutenant-colonel to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for 106 ALLOWAlsrCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. the period from April 1, 1864, to June 16, 1865, would amount to $330.44 (three hun- dred and thirty dollars and forty-four cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. By the Court. Filed March 11, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 13th day of March, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. LEONARD H. MAHAN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-123. Leonard H. Malian v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Commit- tee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Vigo, in the State of Indiana. 2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company C, Thirty-first Regiment of Indiana Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Indiana as second lieutenant thereof on May 1, 1864; and that from and after April 12, 1864, he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until June 25, 1864, when he was mustered in as first lieutenant; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF PACT. 1. Leonard H. Mahan, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United State's and a resident in the county of Vigo, in the State of Indiana. 2. On April 12, 1864, the said Leonard H. Mahan was fhst sergeant of Company C, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on June 25, 1864, the same was and contin- ued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Con- gress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The second lieutenant of said Company C, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volun- teer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company C, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, until June 21, 1864. The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a commission as sec- ond lieutenant, Company C, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said April 12, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company C, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as fii'st lieutenant, June 25, 1864. 4. If the said Leonard H. Mahan should be deemed second lieutenant of Company C, Thirty-first Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period fi-om April 12, 1864, to June 24, 1864, would amount to $119.14, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, including an erroneous deduction of income tax of $4.66. . ,-a^ ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 107 5. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to §3.96, leaving a balance of one hundred and fifteen dollars and eignteen cents ($115.18). By the Court. Filed March 11, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the coui't. Test this 13th day of March, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims, KATE MOREHEAD ET AL, HEIRS OF JOSEPH P. LESLIE. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-106. Kate Morehead et al., heirs of Joseph P. Leslie, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of April, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in then* petition make substantially the following allegations: 1. That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the States of Indiana and Illinois, and are the only children and heirs of Joseph P. Leslie, deceased. 2. That said Joseph P. Leslie, being the major of the Fourth Regiment of Indiana Volunteer Cavalry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the Governor' of the State of Indiana as lieutenant-colonel thereof on September 10, 1863, and that from and after said date the said Joseph P. Leslie assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until January 27, 1864, when he was killed m service; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said Joseph P. Leslie was refused muster and recognition in the grade of lieutenant-colonel dming said period. 3. That during said period the said Joseph P. Leslie was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a major, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of lieutenant-colonel. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Kate Morehead, Clara M. Girard, and Florence E. Cochran, the claimants of this case, are citizens of the United States and residents of the States of Indiana and Illinois. 2. On September 10, 1863, Joseph P. Leslie was major of the Fourth Regiment of Indiana Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and until he was killed in the service, to- wit, on January 27, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the minimum num- ber prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., p. 734.) The lieutenant-colonel of said Fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Cavalry, being then *id thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of lieutenant-colonel de- volved upon said Joseph P. Leslie, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of lieutenant- colonel of said Fourth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Cavalry. The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to Joseph P. Leslie a com.' mission as lieutenant-colonel Fourth Regiment of Indiana Volunteer Cavalry. 3. On the said September 10, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster the said Joseph P. Leslie as lieutenant-colonel of said Fourth Regiment of Indiana Volunteer Cavalry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of lieutenant- colonel until he was killed in the service January 27, 1864. 6. If the said Joseph P. Leslie should be deemed lieutenant-colonel of Fourth Regi- ment of Indiana Volunteer Cavalry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a major, whigh he has received, and that of a lieutenant-colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered from the period from September 10, 1863, to January 27, 1864, would amount to (155.43) 108 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. fifty-five dollars and forty-three cents, as reported by the Auditor for th.e War Depart- ment, including a short payment of $14.33 as major. By the Court. Filed April 1, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 2d day of April, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ERNEST 0. NORTH. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169—133. Ernest C. North v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives, on-the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of December, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq. , his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States, and resident in the county of Ohio, in the State of Indiana. 2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company C, Eighty-thkd Regiment of Indiana Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Indiana as first lieutenant thereof on September 25, 1864; and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until November 11, 1864, when he was mustered in as such; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and iio other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of first lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of first lieutenant. Upon the reports fm-nished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following FINDINGS of pact. 1. Ernest C. North, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Ohio, in the State of Indiana. 2. On September 25, 1864, the said Ernest C. North was first sergeant of Company C, Eighty-third Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered into the service — to wit, on November 11, 1864 — the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. K, p. 734). The first lieutenant of said Company C, Eighty-third Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of first lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and per- formed all the duties of first lieutenant of said Company C, Eighty-third Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, until mustered into service as such, November 11, 1864. The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a commission as first lieutenant Company C, Eighty-third Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said September 25, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as first lieutenant of said Company C, Eighty- third Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of first lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such Novemlier 11, 1864. 4. During the period aforesaid — to wit, from September 25, 1864, to November 11, 1864 — this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 5. During said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Government. 6. If the said Ernest C. North should be deemed fii-st lieutenant of Company C, Eighty-Third Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference Ijetween his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a first lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 109 been mustered for the period from September 25, 1864, to November 10, 1864, would amount to 190.90, without any deduction being made for income tax as reported by tKe Auditor for the War Department. 7. Income tax would amount to $2.82, and if same is deducted the balance is eighty- eight dollars and eight' cents ($88.08). By the Court. Filed December 3, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 6th day of December, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims, ROBERT W. PEMBERTON. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10764. Robert W. Pemberton v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 6th day of November, 1905. Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant m his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Tippeca- noe, in the State of Indiana. 2. That he, being the second sergeant of Company B, Sixth Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Kentucky as second lieutenant thereof on December 31, 1863; and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until Novem- ber 2, 1864, when he was mustered out as second sergeant. Said regiment was con- tinuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason and no other he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a second sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Robert W. Pemberton, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United Stateg and resident in the county of Tippecanoe, in the State of Indiana. 2. On December 31, 1863, the said Robert W. Pemberton was second sergeant of Company B, Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on November 2, 1864, the same waa and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The second lieutenant of said Company B, Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and per- formed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company B, Sixth Regiment Ken- tucky Volunteer Infantry, until November 2, 1864, when he was mustered out of the service as second sergeant. The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to this claimant a commission as second lieutenant Company B, Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said December 31, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company B, Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, solely because his conunand was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieu- tenant until he was mustered out the service as second sergeant. 4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from December 31, 1863, to November 2j 1864, this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. 110 ALLOWAl^rCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 6. If the said Robert W. Pemberton should be deemed second lieutenant of Com- pany B, Sixth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a second sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from December 31, 1863,' to November 2, 1864, would amount to 1473.02, without making any deduction for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 7. Income tax would amount to |12.17, and if to be deducted would leave $460.85. By the Court. Filed November 11, 1905. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 6th day of December, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOHN W. SALE. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-175. John W. Sale v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE.. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27th day of March, 1906. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Allen, in the State of Indiana. 2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company C, Sixty-seventh Regiment of Indiana Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Indiana as second lieutenant thereof on March 1, 1864; and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until December 24, 1864, when he was mustered in as such; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following 'findings op PACT. 1. John W. Sale, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Allen, in the State of Indiana. 2. On March 1, 1864, the said John W. Sale was first sergeant of Company C, Sixty- seventh Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on December 24, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., p. 734.) The second lieutenant of said Company C, Sixty-seventh Regiment Indiana Vol- unteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service iu said gi-ade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company C, Sixty-seventh Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a commission as second lieutenant. Company C, Sixty-seventh Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said March 1, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company C, Sixty-seventh Regi- ment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its mini- mum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such December 24, 1864. 4. If the said John W. Sale should be deemed second lieutenant of Company 0, Sixty-seventh Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. Ill grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, without servant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from March 1, 1864, to December 23, 1864, would be stated as follows, as reported by the Auditor for the War Depart- ment: Second lieutenant's pay, 9 months and 22 days $438. 00 Second lieutenant's subsistence, 297 days. 356. 40 Total - 794. 40 Debits: Pay received as first sergeant, above period |225. 60 Clothing received as first sergeant, above period 34. 07 Subsistence as first sergeant, 297 days 85. 11 Original and additional bounty forfeited 150. 00 494.78 Balance due claimant 299. 62 (Two hundred and ninety-nine dollars and sixty-two cents.) By the Court. Filed March 11, 1907. A true copy. Test this 13th day of March, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOSEPH D. WYATT. fin the Court of Claims Congressional, No. 10839. Joseph D. Wyatt v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-enl^tled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of December, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the National Military Home in the State of Indiana. 2. That he, being the fii-st sergeant of Company K, Twenty-fourth Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Kentucky as second lieutenant thereof on December 1, 1864; and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until January 31, 1865, when he was mustered out as first sergeant; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following B^HEIi'' ■ ' FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Joseph D. Wyatt, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the National Military Home in the StSite of Indiana. 2. On December 1, 1864, the said claimant was first sergeant of Company K, Twenty- fourth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out the service, to wit, on January 31, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The second lieutenant of said Company K, Twenty-fourth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed 112 ALL-OWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company K, Twenty-fourth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, until January 31, 1865, when he was mus- tered out as first sergeant. The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to this claimant a commission as second lieutenant, Company K, Twenty-fourth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said December 1, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company K, Ttventy-fourth Regi- ment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its mini- m.um strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered out the service as first sergeant, as aforesaid. 4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from December 1, 1864, to January 31, 1865, this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. t 6. If the said Joseph D. Wyatt should be deemed second lieutenant of Company K, Twenty-fourth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Irdantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from December 1, 1864, to January 31, 1865, would amount to $102.81, without any deduction for income tax, as reported hj the Auditor for the War Department. 7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $4.15, and if deducted would leave ninety-eight dollars and sixty-six cents ($98.66). By the Court. Filed December 3, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 6th day of December, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims, IOWA. HIRAM ATKINSON. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-1. Hiram Atkinson v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Fremont, in the State of Iowa. 2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company E, Twenty-ninth Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Iowa as second lieutenant thereof on May 16, 1864; and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until July 2, 1864, when he was mustered in as such; said regiment was continuously below the minimum num- ber prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That dm'ing said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a first sergeant although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon the reports fmiiished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following FINDINGS of fact. 1. Hiram Atkinson, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Fremont, in the State of Iowa. 2. On May 16, 1864, the said Hiram Atkinson was first sergeant of Company E, Twenty-ninth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on July 2, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Depart- ment of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., 734.) ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 113 The second lieutenant of said Company E, Twenty-ninth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and per- formed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company E, Twenty-ninth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to this claimant a commission as second lieutenant Company E, Twenty-ninth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said May 16, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company E, Twenty-ninth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such July 2, 1864. 4. If the said Hiram Atkinson should be deemed second lieutenant of Company E, Twenty-ninth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled, had he been mustered for the period from May 16, 1864, to July 2, 1864, would amount to $64.59 (sixty-four dollars and fifty-nine cents), as reported l:)y the Auditor for the War Depart- m.ent. Item for servant's pay is not considered. If satisfactory proof as to that item is presented, then $34.80 additional is due. By the Court. Filed March 11,1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 13th day of March, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ANNIS M. DANA, WIDOAV OF NEWELL B. DANA. [Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 12169-41. Annis M. Dana, widow of Newell B. Dana, deceased, V. The United states ] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of April, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Washington, in the State of Iowa, and is the widow of Newell B. Dana, deceased. 2. That said Newell B. Dana, being the first sergeant of Company F, Fourth Regi- ment of Iowa Volunteer Cavalry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Iowa as captain thereof on February 2, 1864; and that from and after February 4, 1864, the said Newell B. Dana assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until April 29, 1864, when he was mustered in as such; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason and no other said Newell B. Dana was refused muster and recognition in the grade of captain during said period. 3. That during said period the said Newell B. Dana was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of captain. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Annis M. Dana, the claimant of this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Washington, in the State of Iowa. 2. On February 4, 1864, Newell B. Dana was first sergeant of Company F, Fourth Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on April 29, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the mini- mum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department, of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3,1863. (12 Stat. L., p. 734.) H. Rep. 543, 60-1 8 * 114 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The captain of said Company F, Fourth Regiment Iowa Vohmteer Cavahy, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of captain devolved upon said Newell B. Dana, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of captain of said Company F, Fourth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Cavalry, until April 29, 1864. The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to said Newell B. Dana a commission as captain, Company F, Fourth Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Cavalry. 3. On the said February 4, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster the said Newell B. Dana as captain of said Company F, Fourth Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Cavalry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid , although he continued to perform the duties of captain until he was mus- tered into the service as such, April 29, 1864. 4. If the said Newell B. Dana should be deemed captain of Company F, Fourth Regi- ment of Iowa Volunteer Cavalry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a captain, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered from the period from February 4, 1864, to April 29, 1864, would amount to §242.00 (two hundred and forty-two dollars), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. By the Court. Filed April 1, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 2d day of April, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. HENRY GREEN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-57. Henry Green v. The Ignited States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. Tlae claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Clay, in the State of Iowa. 2. That he being the first sergeant of Company F, Forty-ninth Regiment of Wiscon- sin Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Wisconsin as second lieutenant thereof on October 11, 1865, and that from ajid after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until November 14, 1865, when he was mustered out as first sergeant; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon liriefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. 1. Henry Green, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resi- dent in the county of Clay, in the State of Iowa. 2. On October 11, 1865, the said Henry Green was first sergeant of Company F, Forty-ninth Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on November 14, 1865, the same was and con- tinued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., 734.) The second lieutenant of said Company F, Forty-ninth Regiment Wisconsin Volun- teer Infantry, ))eing then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second' lieutenant of said Company F, Forty-ninth Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 115 The governor of the State of Wisconsin also issued to this claimant a commission as second lieutenant Company F, Forty-ninth Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said October 11, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company F, Forty-ninth Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered out of the service as first sergeant November 14, 1865. 4. If the said Henry Green should be deemed second lieutenant of Company F, Forty-ninth Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from October 11, 1865, to November 14, 1865, would amount to $83.81 (eighty-three dollars and eighty-one cents), as reported by the Audi- tor for the War Department. Servant's pay not considered. By the Court. Filed March 11, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 13th day of March, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOHANNAH H. HOUPS, WIDOW OF MICHAEL HOUPS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-77. Johannah II. Houps, widow of Michael Houps, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the aljove-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Dubuque, in the State of Iowa, and is the widow of Michael Houps, deceased. 2. That said Michael Houps being the first sergeant of Company E, Twenty-first Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Iowa as second lieutenant thereof on February 7, 1865; and that from and after said date the said Michael Houps assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until July 25, 1865, when he was mustered out as first sergeant; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said Michael Houps was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period the said Michael Houps was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS of FACT. 1. Johanna H. Houps, widow of Michael Houps. deceased, the claimant of this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Dubuque, in the State of Iowa. 2. On February 7, 1865, Michael Houps was first sergeant of Company E, Twenty- first Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out of service, to wit, on July 25, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the mini- mum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., 734.) The second lieutenant of said Company E, Twenty-first Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry being then and thereafter out of service of said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon said Michael Houps, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company E, Twenty-first Regi- ment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. 116 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to said Michael Houps a commission as second lieutenant, Company E, Twenty-first Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said February 7, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster the said Michael Houps as second lieutenant of said Company E, Twenty- fii'st Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered out of the service as fiurst sergeant, July 25, 1865. 4. If the said Michael Houps should be deemed second lieutenant of Company E, Twenty-first Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered irom the period from February 8, 1865, to July 25, 1865, would amount to $442.74 (four himdred and forty-two dollars and seventy-four cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. Servant's pay not considered. By the Court. Filed March 11. 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 13th day of March, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. NANCY J. GILLELAND, WIDOW OF JOHN PAUL JONES. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10686. Nancy J. Gilleland, widow (remarried) of John Paul Jones, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Madison, in the State of Iowa, and the widow (remarried) of John Paul Jones, deceased. 2. That said decedent, being first sergeant. Company A, Thirty-ninth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Iowa as second lieutenant thereof on May 6, 1864; and that from and after said date the said decedent assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until October 5, 1864, when he was killed in action; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said decedent was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period the said decedent was allowed and paid only the pay and allowance of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous, performance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following PINDINGS OP FACT. 1. Nancy J. Gilleland, widow (remarried) of John Paul Jones, deceased, the claim- ant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Madison, in the State of Iowa. 2. On May 6. 1864, John Paul Jones was first sergeant Company A, Thirty-ninth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until lie was killed in action, to wit, on October 5, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 731 K The second lieutenant of said Company A, Thirty-ninth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon said decedent, who then and thereafter assumed and per- formed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company A, Thirty-ninth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, until killed in action, as aforesaid. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 117 The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to said decedent a commission as second lieutenant Company A, Thirty-ninth Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry.. 3. On the said May 6, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster the said decedent as second lieutenant of said Company A, Thirty-ninth Regi- ment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was killed in action, as aforesaid. 4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from May 6, 1864, to October 5, 1864, the said decedent employed no servant not enlisted. 5. During said period the said decedent did draw rations from the Government. 6. If the said decedent should be deemed second lieutenant of Company A, Thirty- ninth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered from the period from May 6, 1864, to October 5, 1864, would amount to 1173.13 (without any deduction for income tax), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $8.84, leaving a balance of one hundred and sixty-four dollars and twenty-nine cents ($164.29). By the Court. Filed March 11, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 13th day of March, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. BASIL D. MOWERY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-111. Basil D. Mowery v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of January, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attornej^-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant m his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Keokuk, in the State of Iowa. 2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company D, Nineteenth Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Iowa as first lieutenant thereof on August 24, 1863, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until February 6, 1864, when he was mustered in as such, said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of ffi'st lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a ffi'st sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of first lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following : FINDINGS of fact. 1. Basil D. Mowery, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Keokuk, in the State of Iowa. 2. On August 24, 1863, the said claimant was first sergeant of Company D, Nine- teenth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered into the service as first lieutenant, to wit, on February 6, 1864, the same was and con- tinued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). The first lieutenant of said Company D, Nineteenth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of first lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and per- formed all the duties of first lieutenant of said Company D, Nineteenth Regiment Iowa 118 ALLOWAIirCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. Volunteer Infantry, until February 6, 1864, when he was mustered into the service as such. The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to this claimant a commission as first lieutenant, Company D, Nineteenth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said August 24, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as first lieutenant of said Company D, Nineteenth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of first lieutenant until and after he was mustered into the service as such. 4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from August 24, 1863, to February 6, 1864, this claimant employed a servant, not an enlisted man, but it is not shown that he employed such servant exclusively, nor does it appear what amoimt, if any, he paid this servant. 5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. 6. If the said Basil D. Mowery shoxild be deemed first lieutenant of Company D, Nineteenth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a first lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from August 24, 1863, to February 6, 1864, would amount to $461.22, without any deduction for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, including $13.37 income tax erroneously deducted in prior settlements on remuster. 7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $9.65, leaving a balance of four hundred and fifty-one dollars and fifty-seven cents ($451.57). By the Court. Filed January 21, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 23d day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. D. W. POOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10769. D. W. Poor, son and heir at law of James A. Poor, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF THE CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 12th day of November, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: L. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Buchanan, in the State of Iowa, and the son of James A. Poor, deceased. 2. That said decedent, being the first sergeant of Company C, Twenty-seventh Regi- ment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the gov- ernor of the State of Iowa as first lieutenant thereof on March 12, 1864, and that from and after said date the said decedent assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until June 15, 1864, when he was mustered in as first lieutenant; said regirnent was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said decedent was refused muster and recognition in the grade of first lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period the said decedent was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of first lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon l)riefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OP PACT. 1. D. W. Poor, son and heir at law of James A. Poor, dec-teased, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Buchanan, in the State of Iowa. 2. On March 12, 1864, James A. Poor was first sergeant of Company C, Twenty- seventh Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mus- tered into the service, to wit, on June 15, 1864, the same was and continued to be ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 119 below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Depart- ment of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. L., p. 734.) The first lieutenant of said Company C, Twenty-seventh. Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of first lieutenant devolved upon said decedent, who then and thereafter assumed and per- formed all the duties of first lieutenant of said Company C, Twenty-seventh Regi- ment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, until June 15, 1864, when he was mustered in as such. The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to said decedent a commission as fii-st lieutenant Company C, Twenty-seventh Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry. On the said March 12, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster the said decedent as first lieutenant of said Company C, Twenty-seventh Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of first lieutenant until he was mustered in the service as such as aforesaid. 4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from March 12, 1864, to June 15, 1864, the said decedent employed no servant not enlisted. 5. During said period the said decedent did draw rations from the Government. 6. If the said decedent should be deemed first lieutenant of Company C, Twenty- seventh Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has.received, and that of a first lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mus- tered from the period from March 12, 1864, to June 15, 1864, would amount to 1138.83, without any deduction for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Depart- ment. 7. Income tax would amount to .$3.42, and if deducted would leave one hundred and thirty-five dollars and forty-one cents ($135.41). By the Court. Filed November 12, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 13th day of November, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. AUGUST SCHLAPP. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10782. August Schlapp v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between the pay and allow- ances of a second lieutenant and a first sergeant in Company F, Fifth Iowa Cavalry Volunteers, in the late civil war, was transmitted to the court May 14, 1902, by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives. . The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of May, 1905, Penne- baker & Jones, esqs., appearing for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Jas. A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appearing for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. ' The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Fifth Regiment Iowa Volun- teer Cavalry, and entered on the duties of that grade about November 20, 1864, but was denied the pay and allowances thereof because of a prohibition in General Orders of the War Department, No. 182, of date of June 20, 1863, based on section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863; that he applied for compensation to the Secretary of War, and his claim was rejected by the accounting officers of the Treas- ury under the third proviso of the act approved February 24, 1897, because his com- mission bore date subsequent to June 20, 1863, when the command was reduced below minimum strength by the casualties of war. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. I. The claimant was first sergeant, Company F, Fifth Iowa Cavalry Volunteers, and was by competent authority duly appointed second lieutenant thereof February 11, 1865, to rank from November 20, 1864, and he entered uopn the duties of said grade on February 22, 1865, and was honorably discharged from the service to date August 16, 1865. 120 ALLOWAXCE OF CEETAIX CLAIMS. II. During the wliole of this period claimant's command was on active duty against the enemy in the field, and had by the casualties of war been reduced in number below its minimum strength, as required by law and regulations, and he was there- fore, and for no other reason, refused muster and was not allowed and paid the pay and allowances of a second lieutenant of cavalry, although he actually performed the duties of that gi-ade diuing said period. III. If the Congress desire to allow the claimant the pay and allowances of second lieutenant during the period he served as such under his commission, from February 22, 1865, until he was honorably discharged, August 16, 1865, without having been mustered into the service as such, then the amount due him would be $838,64 less the sum of $439,28 for pay and allowances received by him as first sergeant dming the same period, including pay, clothing, travel pay. and subsistence, rations, and overpajTuents of bounty, leaving a difference in his favor of 3399,36, JH^If theCongi'ess also desire to deduct from said last sum the income tax of $27.35, which woiild have been deducted had the claimant been mustered into the service and settled with as second lieutenant dm'inghis service as aforesaid, then the balance remaining would be $372,01. By the Court. Filed May 18, 1905. A true copy. Test this 8th day of December, 1905. [seal.] ' John Randolph, Assistant ClerJ: Court of Claims. ABRAM TREAD WELL, [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10811. Abram Treadwell v. The United States,] STATEMENT OF CASE, The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of jSIay, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of January, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A, Tanner, esq, , his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States, The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Clayton, in the State of Iowa, 2. That he, being the sergeant of Company B, Twenty-fii'st Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Iowa as first lieutenant thereof on November 13, 1863, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until July 6, 1864, when he was mustered in as such. Said regiment was continuously below the mini- mum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he- was refused muster and recognition in the grade of first lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pa;>- and allowance of a sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of fii'st lieu-. tenant. Upon the reports furnished Ijy the War and Treasury Departments, and ui)on other evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the com-t makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. 1. Abram Treadwell, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Clayton, in the State of Iowa. 2, On November 13, 1863, the said Abram Treadwell was sergeant of Company B, Twenty-first Regiment Iowa "S^olunteer Infantry, On that date and until he was mustered into the serAT.ce, to Avit, on July 6, 1864, the same was, and continued to be, below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders No, 182 of the War Depart- ment of June 20, 1863, carrA-ing into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat, L,, 734), The first lieutenant of said Company B, Twenty-fu-st Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said gr-ade, the duties of first lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and per- formed all the duties of first lieutenant of said Company B, Twenty-first Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, until he was mustered into the serA-ice as such July 6. 1864. The gOA'ernor of the State of Iowa also issued to this claimant a commission as fii'st lieutenant Company B, Twenty-first Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIISI' CLAIMS. 121 3. On tlie said November 23, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as fu'st lieutenant of said Company B, Twenty-first Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength as aforesaid, although he contmued to perform the duties of fu-st lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such July 6, 1864. 4. If the said Abram Treadwell should be deemed first lieutenant of Company B, Twenty-fu'st Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a sergeant, which he has received, and that of a first lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from November 13, 1863, to July 5, 1864, would amount to $450.40 without any deduction for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 5. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $8.62, leaving a balance of four hundred and forty-one dollars and seventy-eight cents (§441.78). By the Court. Filed January 7, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 9th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. KANSAS. JAMES P. BARNETT. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-8. James r. Barnett v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of January, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Sedgwick, in the State of Kansas. 2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company G, One hundred and sixteenth Regiment of Illinois Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Illinois as fust lieutenant thereof on December 22, 1863, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said gTade until February 8, 1864, when he was mustered in as such: said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no othei, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of first lieutenant dming said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and''paid only the pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of first lieutenant. Upon the reports fm-nished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. James P. Barnett, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Sedgwick, in the State of Kansas. 2. On December 22, 1863, the said James P. Barnett was fhst sergeant of Coni- pany G, One hundred and sixteenth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry. On that date and imtil he was mustered into the service, to wit, on February 8, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 733). The first lieutenant of said Company G, One hundred and sixteenth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of first lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of first lieutenant of said Company G, One hundred and sixteenth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry, until February 8, 1864. The governor of the State of Illinois also issued to this claimant a commission as first lieutenant Company G, One hundred and sixteenth Regiment Illinois Volun- teer Infantry. _^ ^ 122 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 3. On the said December 22, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as fu'st lieutenant of said Company G, One hundred and sixteenth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of first lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such February 8, 1864. 4. Dming the period aforesaid, to wit, from December 22, 1863, to February 7, 1864, this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 5. Dm"ing said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Government. 6. If the said James P. Barnett should be deemed fii'st lieutenant of Company G, One hundred and sixteenth Regiment Illinois Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a fu'st ser- geant, which he has received, and that of a fii-st lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period fi'om December 22, 1863, to Feb- ruary 7, 1864, would amount to $97.71, without any deduction for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to 11.73, leaving a balance of ninety-five dollars and ninety-eight cents ($95.98). By the Court. Filed January 21, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 24th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. FRANK CRATHORNE. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No, 12169—27. Frank Crathorne v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of January, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the Untied States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Wilson, in the State of Kansas. 2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company D, Twenty-thnd Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of 'the State of Iowa as first lieutenant thereof, on January 15, 1864; and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until March 27, 1864, when he was mustered in as such; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of first lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of first lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished liy the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following FINDINGS of fact. 1. Frank Crathorne, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Wilson, in the State of Kansas. 2. On January 15. 1864, the said Frank Crathorne was first sergeant of Company D, Twenty-third Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered into the service — to wit, on March 27, 1864 — the same was and con- tinued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department, of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stats. L., 734). The first lieutenant of said Company D, Tw(>nty-third Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infanlry, l)eing then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of first lieutenant devolved upf)n this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and per- formed all the duties of first lieutenant of said Company D, Twenty-third Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, until March 27, 1864. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAHsT CLAIMS. 123 The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to this claimant a commission as fu'st lieutenant, Company D, Twenty-third Regiment, Iowa Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said ,-186 , the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as first lieutenant of said Company D, Twenty-third Regi- ment, Iowa Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of first lieutenant imtil he was mustered into the service as such March 27, 1864. 4. During the period afoi'esaid — to wit, from January 16, 1864, to March 26, 1864 — this claimant employed one servant, not enlisted. 5. During said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Government. 6. If the said Frank Crathorne should be deemed first lieutenant of Company D, Twenty-third Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a first lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from January 16, 1864, to March 26, 1864, would amount to $201.17 without any deduction for income tax as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $4.16, leaving a balance of one hundred and ninety-seven dollars and one cent ($197.01). Filed January 21, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 24th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Glerk Court oi Claims, MARY A. MATHEWS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10737. Mary A. Mathews, widow of Fenelon B. Mathews, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 6th day of November, 1905. Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his dhection, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Barber, in the State of Kansas, and is the widow of Fenelon B. Mathews, deceased. 2. That said Fenelon B. Mathews, being the first sergeant of Company B, Thirty- third Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantiy, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Iowa as second lieutenant thereof on January 6, 1865; and that from and after said date the said Fenelon B. Mathews assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until August 8, 1865, when he was discharged as first sergeant. Said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said Fenelon B. Mathews was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period the said Fenelon B. Mathews was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous perform- ance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Mary A. Mathews, widow of Fenelon B. Mathews, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Barber, in the State of Kansas. 2. On January 6, 1865, Fenelon B. Mathews was first sergeant of Company B, Thirty- third Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was discharged the service, to wit, on August 8, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department, of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The second lieutenant of said Company B, Thirty-third Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second 124 ALLOWAlSrCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. lieutenant devolved upon said Fenelon B. Mathews, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company B, Thirty-third Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry, until Aiigust 8, 1865, when he was finally dis- charged the service. The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to said Fenelon B. Mathews a com- mission as second lieutenant. Company B, Thirty- third Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said January 6, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster the said Fenelon B. Mathews as second lieutenant of said Company B, Thirty-third Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was finally discharged the service as first sergeant. 4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from January 6, 1865, to August 8, 1865, the said Fenelon B. Mathews employed no servant not enlisted. 5. During said period the said Fenelon B. Mathews did draw rations from the Government. 6. If the said Fenelon B. Mathews should be deemed second lieutenant of Company B, Thirty- third Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered from the period from January 6, 1865, to August 8, 1865, would amount to $550.52, without any deduction for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 7. Income tax would amount to $25.23, and if to be deducted would leave 1525.29. Filed November 11, 1905. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 6th day of December, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clei'h Court of Claims. FLORENCE M. METZ, WIDOW OF EDMUND METZ. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-121. Florence M. Metz, widow of Edmund Metz deceased, v. The United States. STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to tha coiut by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27th day of March, 1906. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of ]\Iarc]i, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant, in her petition, makas substantially the following allegations: 1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Reno, in the State of Kansas, and she is the widow of Edmund Metz, deceased. 2. That said Edmund Metz being the sergeant of Company H, Thirty-eighth Regiment of Ohio Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Ohio as second lieutenant thereof on February 25, 1864; and that from and after said date the said Edmund Metz assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until April 20, 1864, when he was mustered in as such; said regi- ment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said Edmund Metz was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period the said Edmund Metz was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon th3 reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other evidence, and upon Ijriefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Florence M. Metz, widow of Edmund Metz, deceased, the claimant of this case, citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Reno, in the State of Kansas. 2. On February 25, 1864, Edmund Metz was sergeant of Company H, Thhty-eighth Regiment of Ohio Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on April 20, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 125 raininium number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the AVar Department of June 20, 1863, carr^ang into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The second lieutenant of said Company H, Thirty-eighth Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon said Edmund Metz, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company H, Thhty-eighth Regi- ment Ohio Volunteer Infantry. The go^'ernor of the State of Ohio also issued to said Edmund Metz a commission as second lieutenant Company H, Thii'ty-eighth Regiment of Ohio Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said February 25, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster the said Edmund Metz as second lieutenant of said company H, Thii'ty-eighth Regiment of Ohio Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the difties of second lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such, April 20, 1864. 4. If the said Edmund Metz should be deemed second lieutenant of Company H, Thirty-eighth Regiment of Ohio Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, without servant, to Avhich he would have been entitled had he been mustered from the period from February 25, 1864, to April 19, 1864, would amount to $113.23 (one hundred and thhteen dollars and twenty-three cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, including short payments aggregating |;20.10. By the Court. - Filed March 11, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 13th day of March, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MARTIN V. B. SHEAFOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-176. Martin V. B. Sheafor v. Tha United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Clauns of the House of Representatives on the 27th day of March, 1906. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his dhection, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Cloud, in the State of Kansas. 2. That he, being the sergeant of Company M, Fourth Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Cavalry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Iowa as second lieutenant thereof on January 19, 1864, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until March 20, 1864, when he was mustered in as such ; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused mus- ter and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieu- tenant. Upon the reports furnished by tlie War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Martin V. B. Sheafor, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Cloud, in the State of Kansas. 2. On January 19, 1864, the said Martin V. B. Sheafor was sergeant of Company M, Fourth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on March 20, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the minimum numloer prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). 126 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The second lieutenant of said Company M, Fourth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Cavalry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company M, Fourth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Cavalry. The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to this claimant a commission as second lieutenant. Company M, Fourth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Cavalry. 3. On the said January 19, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company M, Fourth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Cavalry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such March 20, 1864. 4. If the said Martin V. B. Sheafor should be deemed second lieutenant of Company M, Fourth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Cavalry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant without servant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from January 19, 1864, to March 19, 1864, would amount to $152.76 (one hundred and fifty-two dollars and seventy-six cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. By the Court. Filed March 11, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 13th day of March. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. WILLIAM H. SPARROW. [Court of Claims. No. 12169— (158. William H. Sparrow v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of January. 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Labette, in the State of Kansas. 2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company I, Twelfth Regiment of Indiana Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Indiana as second lieutenant thereof on May 1, 1865, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until July 27, 1865, when he was mustered out as first sergeant. Said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following FINDINGS OF PACT. 1. William H. Sparrow, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States, and a resident in the county of Labette, in the State of Kansas. 2. On May 1, 1865, the said William H. Sparrow was second lieutenant of Com- pany I, Twelfth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. On that date, and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on July 27, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The second lieutenant of said Company I, Twelfth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, died on July 24, 1864, and the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who, on May 1, 1865, assumed and performed all the duties of second ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 127 lieutenant of said Company I, Twelfth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, until July 27, 1865. The governor of the State of Indiana also issued to this claimant a commission as second lieutenant, Company I, Twelfth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said May 1, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company I, Twelfth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieu- tenant until he was mustered out of the service as hrst sergeant, July 27, 18G5. 4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from May 1, 1865, to July 27, 1865, this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. 6. If the said ^Mlliam H. Sparrow should be deemed second lieutenant of Company I, Twelfth Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from May 1, 1865, to July 27, 1865, would amount to 1165.26 without any deduction for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $9.60, leaving a balance of one hundred and fifty-five dollars and sixty-six cents (S155.66). Filed February 21, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 23d day of January, 1907. [seal.] - John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JACOB SAMUEL WEAVER. [Court of Claims. Congressionnl, No. 10S26. Jacob Samuel Weaver r. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The.claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court Ijy the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 6th day of November, 1905. Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Bourbon, in the State of Kansas. 2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company M, Eleventh Regiment Pennsyl- vania Volunteer Cavalry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Pennsylvania as second lieutenant thereof, to take rank from October 1, 1864; and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until November 5, 1864, when he was mustered in as second lieutenant. Said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regu- lation, and for this reason and no other he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Jacob Samuel Weaver, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Bourbon, in the State of Kansas. 2. On October 1, 1864, the said Jacob Samuel Weaver was first lieutenant of Com- pany M, Eleventh Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on November 6, 1864, the same was . and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The second lieutenant of said Company M, Eleventh Regiment Pennsylvania Vol- unteer Cavalry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of 128 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company M, Eleventh Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry, until November 6, 1864, when he was mustered as such. The governor of the State of Pennsylvania also issued to this claimant a commission as second lieutenant, Company M, Eleventh Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry. 3. On the said October 1, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company M, Eleventh Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such. 4. During a portion of the period aforesaid, to wit, from October 25, 1864, to Novem- ber 6, 1864, this claimant employed a servant not enlisted. 5. During said period this claimant did not draw rations fi'om the Government. 6. If the said Jacob Samuel Weaver should be deemed second lieutenant of Com- pany M, Eleventh Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from October 1, 1864, to November 6, 1864, would amount to $82.26, without any deduction for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 7. Income tax would amount to 12.80, and if to be deducted would leave $79.46. By the Court. Filed November 1, 1905. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 6th day of December, 1905. [seal.] ■ John Randolph, Assista7it Clerk Court of Claims. KENTUCKY. SARAH ANN DOBBS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10668. Sarah Ann Dobbs, widow of Nathaniel B. Dobbs, V. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the com't by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th clay of November, 1905. Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- eral, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his dhection, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Pulaski, in the State of Kentucky, and is the widow of Nathaniel B. Dobbs, deceased. 2. That said Nathaniel B. Dobbs, being the first sergeant of Company A, Twelfth Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Kentucky as second lieutenant thereof on March 6, 1864, and that from and after said date the said Nathaniel B. Dobbs assumed and per- formed all the duties of his said grade until July 10, 1864, when he was mustered in as second lieutenant. Said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said Nathaniel B. Dobbs was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant dming said period. 3. That during said period the said Nathaniel B. Dobbs was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a first sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Sarah Ann Dobbs, widow of Nathaniel B. Dobbs, deceased, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Pulaski, in ' the State of Kentucky. 2. On ;March 6, 1864, Nathaniel B. Dobbs was first sergeant of Company A, Twelfth Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mus- tered into the service, to wit, on July 10, 1864, the same was and continued to be below ALLOWAXCE OP CEETAi:J3" CLAIMS. 129 the ininimum number prescribed by General Orders No. 182 of the War Department of Jvme 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The second lieutenant of said Company A, Twelfth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon said Nathaniel B. Dobbs, who then" and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company A, Twelfth Regi- ment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, until mustered as such, to wit, July 10, 1864. The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to said Nathaniel B. Dobbs a commission as second lieutenant Company A, Twelfth Regiment of Kentucky Vol- unteer Infantry. 3. On the said March 6, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster the said Nathaniel B. Dobbs as second lieutenant of said Company A, Twelfth Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered into rhe service as such, as aforesaid. 4. During the peritid aforesaid, to wit, from March 6, 1864, to July 10, 1864, the said Nathaniel B. Dobbs employed no servant not enlisted. 5. During said period the said Nathaniel B. Dobbs did draw rations from the Gov- ernment. 6. If the said Nathaniel B. Dobbs should be deemed second lieutenant of Com- pany A, Twelfth Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been en- titled had he been mustered fi'om the period from March 6, 1864, to July 10, 1864, would amount to $152.25, without making any deduction for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 7. Income tax would amount to $4.10; if to be deducted, would leave $148.15. Filed November 10, 1905. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the comt. Test this 6th day of December, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. "U. S. DENNY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8194. Estate of Thomas D. Denny v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of tlie rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Thomas D. Denny, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed November 2, 1903. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 8194. U. S. Denny, heir of estate of Thomas D. Denny, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 2d day of March, 1891. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 2d day of November, 1903, feund that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of December, 1904, George A. & William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Felix Brannigan, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : That he is the heir of Thomas D. Denny, deceased; that said claimant's decedent was during the civil war a resident of the State of Kentucky and did not give any aid or H. Rep. 543, 60-1 9 ISO ALLOWANCE OF CERTAUsT CLAIMS. comfort to the said rebellion, but was throughout that war loyal to the Government of tiae United States. That the following property belonging to claimant's decedent was taken from him by the United States Army and used by the said Army, the date, place, and command being particularly stated below, in Wayne County, State of Kentucky, to wit : By First Tennessee Cavalry Volunteers, Lieut. John H. James, quarter- master, December 31, 1861 — 150 bushels corn, 80 cents per bushel |120. 00 3^ tons hay, at $16 per ton , 56. 00 20 bushels oats, at 60 cents per bushel 12. 00 By Second Tennessee Infantry Volunteers, Lieut. G. AV. Keith, regimental quartermaster — 350 bushels corn, at 80 cents per bushel 280. 00 55 bushels of o'ats. at 60 cents per bushel 33. 00 4 tons hay, at $16 per ton _. 64. 00 By Twelfth Kentucky Infantry Volunteers, Lieut. G. H. Noland, regimental quartermaster, about December 31, 1861 — 40 bushels corn 32. 00 1 ton hay 16. 00 15 bushels oats, at 60 cents per bushel 9. 00 By Thirtieth Kentucky Mounted Infantry, Lieut. G. W. Funnell, regimen- tal quartermaster, about October 16, 1864 — 400 bushels corn, at $1 per bushel 400. 00 1 ton hay 16. 00 26 bushels oats, at 60 cents per bushel 15. 60 Total 1, 053. 60 The comt, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OF FACT. Dming the war for the suppression of the rebellion, the military forces of the LTnited States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from the claimant's decedent in Wayne County, State of Kentucky, property as above described, which at the time and place was reasonably worth the sum of one hundred and two dollars (|102). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed January 3, 1905. A true copy. Test this 8th day of February, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. THOMAS P. COLDWELL. fCourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 10651. Thomas P. Coldwell v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 6th day of November, 1905. Messrs. Pennebaker(& Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attoiniey-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Laurel, in the State of Kentucky. 2. That he, being the captain of Company K, Seventh Regiment of Kentucky Tolunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Kentucky as major thereof on October 9, 1865; and tliat from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade luitil March 24, 1866, when he was mustered out as captain; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of major during said period. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 131 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a captain, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of major. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Thomas P. Coldwell, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Laurel, in the State of Kentucky. 2. On October 9, 1865, the said Thomas P. Coldwell was captain of Company K, Seventh Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out the service, to wit, on March 24, 1866, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department, of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat. _L., p. 734.) The major of said Seventh Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of major devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of major of said Seventh Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry vmtil March 24, 1866, when he was finally discharged the service as a captain. The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to this claimant a commission as major Seventh Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said October 9, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as major of said Seventh Regiment Kentucky Volunteer In- fantry solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties ,of major until he was mustered out the service as captain. 4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from October 9, 1865, to March 24, 1866, this claimant employed only one servant, not enlisted. 5. If the said Thomas P. Coldwell should be deemed major of the Seventh Regi- ment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the differ- ence between his pay and allowances as a captain, which he has received, and that of a major, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from October 9, 1865, to March 24, 1866, would amount to $89.83, without making any deduction for difference in income tax as reported by the Auditor for the War Department: The difference in income tax, amounting to $4.49, if to be deducted, would leave $85 34 Filed November 1, 1905. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 6th day of December, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. STEPHEN E. BROWN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5188. Stephen E. Brown v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on preliminary inquiry, finds that Stephen E. Brown, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed December 24, 1894. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5188. Stephen E Brown i'. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 10th day of July, 1888. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 24th day of December, 1894, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores or from whom they were alleged to have been taken was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. 132 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of January, 1907. 0. A. and F. W. Brandenburg, esqs., ajjpeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That during the said war he was a resident of Boyle County, State of Kentucky, and was the owner and possessor, on his farm in said county and State, of certain quarter- master stores and commissary supplies, which in the fall of 1862 were seized and appro- priated to the use of the military forces of the United States then stationed and operating in said locality, according to the following bill of items: 1 brown mare $150 1 bay mare 125 1 sorrel horse 125 600 bushels of corn, at 80 cents 480 480 bushels of oats, at 50 cents 240 Total 1, 120 The court, upon the evidence and after the consideration of briefs and after hearing the arguments of the respective counsel, makes the following FINDING OF PACT. There was taken from the claimant in Boyle County, State of Kentucky, by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property as above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of four hundred and ninety dollars ($490) No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed January 14, 1907. A true copy. Test this 24th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Eandolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. VALENTINE S. BREWER. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10628. Valentine S. Brewer v. The Upited States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Commit- tee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of November, 1905. Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Jams A. Tanner, esq . , his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Owsley, in the State of Kentucky. 2. That he, being the sergeant of Company D, Seventh Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Kentucky as second lieutenant thereof on December 18, 1863. and that from and after said date he assumed and pei'formed all the duties of his said grade until October 5, 1864, when he was mustered out as sergeant; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished hj the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence, and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS, 183 FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Valentine S. Brewer, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Owsley, in the State of Kentucky. 2. On December 18, 1863. the said Valentine S. Brewer was sergeant of Company D, Seventh Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on October 5, 1864, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department, of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The second lieutenant of said Company D, Seventh Regiment Kentucky Volun- teer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company D, Seventh Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, until October 5, 1864. The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to this claimant a commission as second lieutenant, Company D, Seventh Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said December' 18, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company D. Seventh Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered out the service -as sergeant. 4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, fi'om December 18, 1863, to October 5, 1864, this claimant employed no servant. 5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. 6. If the said Valentine S. Brewer should be deemed second lieutenant of Company D, Seventh Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from December 18. 1863, to October 5, 1864, would amount to .?469.90, without making any deduction for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 7. Income tax would amount to $12.31, and if to be deducted would leave §457.59. Filed November 2, 1905. A true copv of the finding of facts as filed by the court. Test this 6th day of December, 1905. [seal.] ' John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. WILLIAM n. BOSWELL. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 22S0. William H. Boswell r. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that William H. Boswell, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed November 13, 1905. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 22S0. William H. Boswell v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of February ,_ 1888. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 13th day of November, 1905, found that the person alleged to have' furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of October, 1906. Charles W. Clagett, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. 134 ALLOWAiSrCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Anderson County, Ky., and resided in said covmty during the civil war of 1861; that he has a claim against the United States for stores and supplies furnished the Army of the United States as follows: For forage, stabling, and attention furnished to 43 Government horses for two hun- dred and ten days in the year 1865, under direction of Capt. Lorenzo Brown, of Com- pany D, Fifty-fourth Kentucky Volunteers, at |0.15 per day per horse, $1,354.54; that a claim for compensation for said services was duly filed under the act of Congress approved July 4, 1864, but that said claim has never been paid in whole nor in part; that the claimant was loyal to the United States throughout the war of the rebellion. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OF FACT. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority for the use of the Army, took and occupied the stable belonging to the claimant, William H. Boswell. The reasonable rental value of said building was the sum of five hundred and forty dollars ($540), no part of which appears to have been paid. By the Court. Filed October 29, 1906. A true copy. Test this 4th day of December, A. D. 1906. [seal.] John Eandolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. A. W. RICHARDS, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11196. A. W. Richards, administrator of the estate of Kinchen Bell, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores, alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by resolution of the House of Representatives on the 20th day of February, 1903, for a finding of facts, in accordance with the provisions of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 23d day of November, 1904. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by E. C. Brandenburg, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations, to wit: That he is a resident of the county of Union, State of Kentucky, and is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of Kinchen Bell, deceased; that during the late civil war said decedent resided in said county and State; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent and converted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $6,609.70, as follows, to wit: Taken from the farm of Kinchen Bell, in Union County, State of Kentucky, about August, 1862, by troops under command of Col. James M. Shackelford: 1 bay mare $150. 00 1 sorrel horse 150. 00 2 meals each for 20 officers, at 50 cents each 20. 00 1,500 poimds cured meat, at 25 cents per pound 375. 00 10 bushels of meal 15. 00 350 bushels of corn (2 feeds for 700 horses) 350. 00 .7 tons hay (2 feeds for 700 horses) 140. 00 Taken about September, 1862, by Federal troops: 2 horses 300. 00 Taken in the spring of 1863, by troops under command of Captain Haw- kins: 1 sorrel hoi-se 150. 00 Taken in the summer of 1863, by Major (or Lieutenant-Colonel) Bristow's command: 2 gray horses 300. 00 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 135 Taken in the summer of 1863, by a company of United States Cavalry of about 100 men: 25 bushels of corn |25. GO One-half ton of hay 10. 00 Taken about July, 1863, by a command of 400 to 500 infantry: 1,000 pounds of cured meat, at 25 cents per pound 250. 00 Taken in the spring of 1864: 1 bay horse 100. 00 Taken in the summer of 1864, by command of Major (or Lieutenant-Colonel) Bristow, 400 to 500 cavalry: 2 meals each for 20 officers, at 50 cents each 20. 00 1,000 pounds of cured meat, at 25 cents per pound 250. 00 5 bushels of corn meal 7. 50 250 bushels of com (2 feeds for 500 horses) 250. 00 5 tons of hay (2 feeds for 500 horses) 100. 00 Taken in the fall of 1864, about October: 2 light gray mares 250. 00 Taken about March, 1865, by about 400 troops under the command of Captain Wright: 1,500 pounds of cured meat, at 25 cents per pound 375. 00 10 bushels of corn meal 15. 00 24 pounds of lard, at 30 cents per pound 7. 20 12,000 pounds of tobacco, consumed, can-ied away, and used for bed- ding 3, 000. 00 Total 6, 609. 70 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS or PACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant's decedent was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war of the rebellion. II. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Union County, State of Kentucky, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States for the use of the Army, pi'operty of the kind and character above described, which was then ahd there reasonably worth the sum of one thousand four hundred and twenty dollars ($1,420), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. The claim was not presented to any Department or officer of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. By the Court. Filed December 5, 1904. A true copv. Test this 9th day of December, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. WILLIAM A. ATTERSALL. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10615. WiOiam A. Attersall v. The United States.] statement of case. f The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the coiu-t by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of January, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his dii-ection, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant m his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Clarke, in the State of Kentucky. 2. That he, being the second lieutenant of Company A, Twentieth Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer InfantrJ^ was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Kentucky as first lieutenant thereof on June 28, 1864, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until January 17, 1865, when he was mustered out as second lieutenant; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of first lieutenant during said period. 136 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIX CLAIMS. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a second lieutenant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of first lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the "War and Treasui'y Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. William A. Attersall, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Clarke, in the State of Kentucky. 2. On June 28, 1864, the said William A. Attersall was second lieutenant of Company A, Twentieth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on January 17, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrving into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat., 734). The fiTst lieutenant of said Company A, Twentieth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of first lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and per- formed all the duties of first lieutenant of said Company A, Twentieth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, until January 17, 1865, when mustered out as second lieutenant. The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to this claimant a commission as first lieutenant Company A, Twentieth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said June 28, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as first lieutenant of said Company A, Twentieth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of first lieutenant until he was mustered out of the service as second lieutenant. 4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from June 28, 1864, to January 17, 1865, this claimant employed one servant, not enlisted. 5. During said period this claimant did not draw rations from the Government. 6. If the said William A. Attersall should be deemed first lieutenant of Company A, Twentieth Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a second-lieutenant, which he has received, and that of a first lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from June 28, 1864, to January 17, 1865, would amount to $30.74, without deduction for income tax, as reported by the Comp- troller of the Treasury. 7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $1.66, leaving a balance of twenty- nine dollars and eight cents ($29.08). By the Court. Filed January 7, 1907. A. true copy of the finding of fact as filed by the court. Test this 9th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Cowt of Claims. MARY E. MARTIN, ADMINISTRATRIX. [Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 12169—195. Mary E. Iilartin, widow (remarried) of Samson M. Archer, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of January, 1907. Messrs. Penneljaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and imder his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. ' The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Bourbon, in the State of Kentucky, and is the widow (remarried) of Samson M. Archer, deceased. 2. That said Samson M. Archer, being the lieutenant-colonel of the Seventeenth Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Iowa as colonel thereof on June 4. 1865. and that from and after said date the said Samson M. Archer assumed and performed all the duties of ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIK CLAIMS. 137 his said grade until August 3, 1865, when he was mustered out as lieutenant-colonel. Said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said Samson M. Archer was refused mus- ter and recognition in the gi-ade of colonel during said period. 3. That dm'ing said period the said Samson M. Archer was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was in the coTitinuous performance of the duties of colonel. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT.- 1. Mary E. Martin, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Bourbon, in the State of Kentucky. 2. On June 4, 1865, Samson M. Archer was lieutenant-colonel of the Seventeenth Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on August 3, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into ei^ect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The colonel of said Seventeenth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel devolved upon said Samuel M. Archer, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of colonel of said Seventeenth Regiment Iowa Volunteer Infantry until August 3, 1865. The governor of the State of Iowa also issued to said Samson M. Archer a commis- sion as colonel Seventeenth Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said June 4, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster the said Samson M. Archer as colonel of said Seventeenth Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry solely ))ecause his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of colonel until he was mus- tered out of the service as lieutenant-colonel. 6. If the said Samson M. Archer should be deemed colonel of said Seventeenth Regiment of Iowa Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the dif- ference between his pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel, which he has received, and that of a colonel, "to which he would have been entitled had he ])een mustered from the period from June 4, 1865, to August 3, 1865, would amount to S115.70, includ- ing a short payment of $3.20, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 7. Income tax, if to be deducted, would amount to S5.63, leaving a lialance of one hundred and ten dollars and seven cents ($110.07). By the Court. Filed January 7, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 9th day of January, 1907. [seal.] , John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JAMES M. HALL. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10955. James M. Hall v. -The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken Iry or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that James M. Hall, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed March 19, 1906. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10955. .Tames M. Hall r. The United States.] statement op case. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the House of Representatives on the 27th day of January, 1903. 138 ALLOWAI^CE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. On a preliminary inqniry the comt, on the 19th day of March, 1906, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or fi-om whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 18th day of January, 1907. Watson E. Coleman, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States, residing at Mount Sterling, Ky.; that during the late civil war stores and supplies were taken by or furnished to the United States Army for their use at or near Mount Sterling, Ky., said stores and supplies belonging to Burroughs & Hall, and being valued at $3,027, as follows: 9 barrels of pure copper whisky, 378 gallons, at |4 per gallon $1, 512 4 barrels pure apple brandy, 168 gallons, at $5 per gallon 840 1 barrel Holland gin, imported, 43 gallons, at $5 per gallon '. 215 1 barrel ginger wine, 40 gallons, at |3 per gallon 120 6 barrels spirits, 85 gallons, at $4 per gallon 340 Total ' 3, 027 Claimant further alleges that he is the surviving member of the fu-m of Burroughs & Hall, and that J. William Burroughs was the only other member of said firm; that the claim herein was presented to the War Department and by it rejected and dis- allowed. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OP PACT. During the late civil war James M. Hall and J. W. Burroughs were the owners of the whisky and other liquors described in the petition' at Mount Sterling, Ky. In the early part of 1865 the military forces of the United States seized and confiscated said whisky and liquors on the ground that the claimants were selling same to the enlisted men in violation of the order of the commandant of the troops then stationed at that place. The whisky and liquors were taken away in wagons by said military forces, but what use was made of them does not appear to the satisfaction of the court. The reasonable value of the whisky and liquors so taken was at the time and place about fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500). The one-half thereof, or the interest of the said James M. Hall, whose claim was referred to the court, was seven hundred and fifty dollars ($750). The claim of the said J. W. Burroughs has not been referred to the court, and for that reason his intervening petition is dismissed. By the Court. Filed February 25, 1907. A true copy. Test this 13th day of December, A. D. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. THOMAS R. HILL. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11168. Thomas R. HiU v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The following bill was referred to the court on the 8th day of January, 1902, by reso- lution of the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act:^ [H. R. 8262, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] •'A BILL For the relief of Thomas R. Hill. 'f- "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay the sum of nine hundred and eighty-seven dollars and fifty cents to Thomas R. Hill, of Bath County, Kentucky, for property taken from him by the Army of the United States during the late war." ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. Ic9 The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court September 3, 1903, in which he makes the following allegations: That during the war for the suppression of the rebellion he resided in Bath County , Ky., and throughout said war was loyal to the Government of the United States; that during said period two or three regiments of caA^alry belonging to the Federal Army were encamped at "Mollie Gill," about 2 miles from his residence; that the base pick- ets of this camp were stationed on the public road near the house and premises of claim- ant; that these pickets immediately began to use feed and grain belonging to him, and so continued to use and feed same for a period of from three to four weeks; that the amount and value of such feed and grain was as follows: 650 bushels of corn, at |1 per bushel $650. 00 675 dozen bushels of oats, at 50 cents per bushel 337. 50 Total 987. 50 The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 22d day of December, 1904. R.. W. Haynes, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of coun- sel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that Thomas R. Hill was loyal to the Government throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from the claimant in Bath County, State of Kentucky, property as above described, which at the time and place was reasonably worth the sum of four hundred and ninety-five dollars ($495). No payment appears to have been made therefor. III. The claim was not presented to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887. No evidence has been offered by the claimant under said reference "bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in presenting the claim * * * and no facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed and which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy." By the Court. Filed January 3, 1905. A true copy. Test this 6th day of January, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ST. ANDREWS LODGE, NO. 18, FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS, OF CYNTHIANA, KY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11182. St. Andrews Lodge, No. 18, Free and Accepted Masons, of Cynthiana, Ky., v. United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court February 20, 1903, by resolution of the United States House of Representatives, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the benefit of Saint Andrews Lodge, Numbered Eighteen, Free and Accepted Masons, of Cynthiana, Kentucky. "£e it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay to Saint Andrews Lodge, Numbered Eighteen, Free and Accepted Masons, of Cynthiana, Kentucky, the sum of one thousand two hundred and forty-six dollars and fifty cents, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- priated, as compensation and payment for the use, occupancy, and destruction of the property of said lodge by the United States forces operating in Kentucky during the war of the rebellion." 140 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. The officers of the St. Andrews Lodge, Free and Accepted Masons, No. 18, of Cyn- thiana, Ky., appeared and filed their petition in this court on the 15th day of May, 1903, in which they make the following allegations: That during the war for the suppression of the rebellion^ and from about the 1st day of Jime, 1864, to October 1, 1864, the United States military forces, by proper author- ity, but without consent or any lease or contract occupied the room of said lodge, for the purpose of use of the United States military forces and most of the time by order of James B. Michaner, late captain Company H, One hundred and sixty-second Regiment Ohio Infantry Volunteers, and during said occupancy said room was sub- jected to damage which required a large amount to repair and place the property m the same order as it was when the United States military forces took the room as afore- said, the value of said rent and damage which is reasonably claimed is $1,200, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on the 5th day of April, 1905. Simon Lyon, esq_. , appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by C. F. Kincheloe, esq his assistant and under his dkection, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. . The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments ot counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF PACT. I. It appears from the evidence that St. Andrews Lodge, No. 18, Free and Accei)ted Masons, of Cynthiana, Ivy., as a lodge, was loyal to the Government of the United States tliroughout the late war of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of tJie United States, by proper authoritv, took possession of and used and occupied tlie hall belonging to the Free and Accepted Masons of St. Andrews Lodge, No. 18, ot Cynthi- ana Ky , for military purposes, and during such occupancy greatly damaged the same The reasonajjle rental value of said hall during the time it was so occupied, including the cost of repairs necessary to restore the hall to the condition it was when such occupancy began, was the sum of six hundred dollars (S600). No pavment'appeai-s to have been made therefor. ^ . i ^ III. The claim was never presented to any department or ofhcer of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. By the Court. Filed April 18, 1905. A true copy. Test this 15th day of March, 1906. [SEAL.] ' , . John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Clatms. J. HARRISON PLANCK AND P. S. DUDLEY. rCourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 11215. J. Harrison Planck and PS. Dudley, trustees of the Baptist Church of Flemingsburg, Ky., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF THE CASE. The following bill was referred to the court February 20, 1903, by resolution of the House of Representatives under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "[H. R. 13050, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] "A BILL For relief of Baptist Church of Flemingsburg. Ky. "Be it enacted by the Senaie and House of Representatires of the United States of America in Conor ess assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pav to the Baptist Church of Flemingslnirg, Kentucky, tlie sum of one thousand dollars," for rent and use of and conversion of the building and prop- erty of said church bv the Army of the United States during the war of the rebellion. The claimants, the trustees of the Baptist Church of Flemingsburg. Ky., appeared and filed their petition in the court June 14, 1903, in which they make the toUowmg ^ The claimants are the duly elected and qualified trustees of the Baptist Church of Flemino-sburg, Kv., a church society dulv organized, on the 15th day ot June. 184U, in accordance with the laws of the State of Kentucky, under which organization and ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIjS^ CLAIMS. 141 laws and amendments thereto it has ever since and still exists, and under which laws and amendments thereto the claimants as such trustees are the owners of a certain tract of ground in Flemingsburg, Ky., and improvements thereon, consisting of fences and a chm-cli building containing all the necessary furniture and fittings, and known as the Baptist Church of Flemi'ngsburg, Ky., and as such legal owners and by virtue of the laws of the State of Kentucky the claimants are entitled to bring this suit. At intervals during the period of the late civil war, and particularly during the years 1863, 1864, and 1865, troops of the Federal army camped in and around the said Bap- tist Church of Flemingsburg, Ky., and at other intervals during the same period used the said church building and grounds for hospital purposes, and excluded the claim- ant trustees and their predecessors in interest from their customary and lawful use thereof during the whole of the period aforesaid. The fair and reasonable rental value of the said premises covering the period of time they were appropriated to the use of the United States authorities was at least four himdred dollars (§400). While the premises were occupied by or under the control of the United States authorities, as stated in the preceding paragraph, the soldiers destroyed the fence suiTounding the church, tore away and removed the pulpit, floors, and seats, de- stroyed the window lights and sashes in the chm-ch, shot holes through the ceiling and rendered the premises entirely unfit for their accustomed uses. The fences, seats, pulpit, window sashes and all other wooden material that could be taken from the grounds and building without absolutely destroying the liuilding were taken and used by the soldiers as firewood. All the acts envmierated herein were performed hy the soldiers under the direction or with the consent of their commanding officers. A fair and reasonable estimate of the damages committed by the soldiers, as herein described, would not be less than six hundred dollars (S600), which sum was actually expended by the predecessors of the claimants in replacing the fencing, windows, seats, floors, pulpit, and repairing the damages committed, as described. All the property described herein was the property of the claimants, or their predecessors in interest. No payment for the use of the property, or for its damage as herein described, has been made by the United States, in whole or in part, though frequent demand has been made for such payment. There has been no laches in the prosecution of this claim. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 7th day of February, 1905. Messrs. Dudley & Michener appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- General, by F. DeC. Faust, esci.. his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interest of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. • I. It appears from the evidence that the Baptist Church of Flemingsburg, Ky., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. n. At intervals during the period of the late civil war, and particularly during the years 1863, 1864, 1865, United States troops, by proper aiithority, used and occupied the church building and grounds of the Baptist Church of Flemingslnirg, Ky., for hospital purposes. "The reasonable rental value of said church and grounds during the periods they were so occupied and the damage thereto was the sum of seven hun- dred and seventy-five dollars (S775),. for which no payment appears to have been made. III. The claim was not presented to the commissioners of claims under the act of March 3, 1871, and is consequently barred luider the provisions of the act of June 15, 1878 (20 Stat. L.. p. 550, sec. 5). Under the act of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. L., p. 505, sec. 14), which provides that where there has been delay or laches in pre- senting a claim, the court shall report whether there are "any facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy," it is shown that in consequence of the ignorance of the law on the part of the trustees of said church the case was not presented to the Quartermaster- General until July, 1876; that the claim remained in the Quartermaster-Generars Office for ten years, the papers having been mislaid. The claim was then sent to the Auditor, where it stayed until 1893. ' The claim was then presented to Congress and referred to this court under the Bowman Act. remaining in the court eight years, when it was finally dismissed for want of prosecution. The claim was then referred under the Tucker Act, in February, 1903. ^ 1'42 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. As to whether these facts are sufficient or insufficient to excuse the claimant the court makes no finding, that question being exclusively within the judgment and dis- cretion of Congress. By the Court. Filed February 13, 1905. A true copy. Test this 10th day of November, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph. Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, LEBANON, KY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12219. First Presbyterian Church, at Lebanon, Ky., v. The United States.] " STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been taken or furnished to the military forces of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. On the 31st day of March, 1906, the House of Representatives referred to the court a bill in the following words: "[H. R. 6674, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the First Presbyterian Church at Lebanon, Kentucky. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to the First Presbyterian Church at Lebanon, in Kentucky, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of six thousand one hundred and ten dollars, for the use and occupation of the church building and furniture and fixtures pertaining to and in and about said building and injuries to same, and the destruction of some of the property in and about said building by the military forces of the United States during the war of the rebellion; and said sum shall, when paid, be in full of all claims of said church against the United States for the use of or damages to its property by said Army. ' ' The claimant appeared and filed a petition herein September 4, 1906. in which it is substantially averred that — During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the First Presbyterian Church of Lebanon. Ky., was loyal to the United States; that from 1862 to 1865, inclusive, said building was occupied and used by the United States troops and damaged, the fixtures and furniture, in the sum of $6,110. The case was brought to a hearing on loyaltv and merits on the 7th day of February. 1907. ■ Messrs. Calhoun & Sizer appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by ' Percy M. Cox, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The First Presbyterian Church of Lebanon, Ky., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebel- lion. II. During the late civil war the military forces of the United States, for their use, took possession of the church building described in the petition at or about the time of the battle of Perryville and used the same at intervals for a period of about two years. The building was first used as a hospital and afterwards as a barracks, and later was a fort for the troops, and while so used and occupied by the military forces of the United States as a fort was fired upon by the Confederate forces under the late Gen. John H. Morgan and the roof and cupola of the church materially damaged, but the extent thereof does not appear. The reasonable rental value of the church building during such occupancy, together with the damages thereto caused by the military forces of the United States (inde- pendently of any damage caused by said Confederate forces under General Morgan), ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 143 in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was tlie sum of fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500), of which amount it appears that the claimant has been paid the sum of one hvmdred and twenty dollars ($120), leaving thirteen hundred and eighty dollars ($1,380) due on account of the use and occupation by the United States military forces and for the damages occasioned by said use and occupation. III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by the House of Repre- sentatives, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why the same was not previously presented to some Department of the Government. By the Court. Filed February 11, 1907. A true copy. Test this 10th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF THE BAPTIST CHURCH, OF SOMERSET. KY. [ Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11719. Trustees of the Baptist Church, of Scmerset, Ky., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: " [S. 4871, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Baptist Church, at Somerset, Ky. "i?e it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assevihled, That the Secretary of the Treasuiy be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Baptist Church at Somerset, Kentucky, the sum of two thousand dollars for use of and damage to their church property by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war.'" The trustees of the Baptist Church of Somerset, Ky.. appeared and filed their petition in this court July 30, 1904, in which they make the following allegations: That during the month of February, 18C2, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the said Baptist Church and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes from said date until on or about April, 1865. That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable value of said building during said occupancy, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was before such occupation was the sum of $2,000. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 6th day of Febru- ary, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- General, by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, m.akes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Baptist Church of Somerset, Ky., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war of the rebellion. , II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, from February, 1862, to April, 1865, United States troops, under proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Baptist Church, at Somerset, Ky., and used and occupied the same for military purposes, being used as a hospital; by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value of said church building dur- ing the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore said building to theVondition in which it was when said occupancv began, was the sum of ($1,500) fifteen hundred dollars. No payment appears to have been made therefor. 144 allowa:n^ce of certain claims. III. The claim was never presented to any Department or officer of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the Tucker Act aforesaid. By the Court. Filed February 24, 1905. A true copy. Test this 24th day of February, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ELIZABETH MAGRUDER. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10734. Elizabeth Magruder, niece of Alexander Magruder, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 6th day of November, 1905. Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Nelson, in the State of Kentucky, and is the niece and heir at law of Alexander Magruder, deceased. 2. That said Alexander Magruder being the major of the Twenty-seventh Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the gov- ernor of the State of Kentucky as lieutenant-colonel thereof on April 21, 1864, and that from and after said date the said Alexander Magruder assumed and performed all the difties of his said grade until March 21, 1865, when he was mustered out as major; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason and no other said Alexander Magruder was refused muster and recognition in the grade of lieutenant-colonel during said period. 3. That during said period the said Alexander Magruder was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a major, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of lieutenant-colonel. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF PACT. 1. Elizabeth Magruder, niece and heir at law of Alexander Magruder, deceased, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Nelson, in the State of Kentucky. 2. On April 21, 1864, Alexander Magi'uder was major of the Twenty-seventh Regi- ment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on March 21, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The lieutenant-colonel of said the Twenty-seventh Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of lieutenant- colonel devolved upon said Alexander Magruder, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of lieutenant-colonel of said the Twenty-seventh Regi- ment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry imtil March 21, 1865, when he was mustered out of the service. The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to said Alexander Magruder a commission as lieutenant-colonel of the Twenty-seventh Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said April 21, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster the said Alexander Magruder as lieutenant-colonel of the Twenty-seventh Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry solely because his command was below its minimum strength as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of lieutenant-colonel until he was mustered out of the service as major. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 145 4. If the said Alexander Magruder should be deemed lieutenant-colonel of the Twenty-seventh Pvegiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that gi'ade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a major which he has received and that of a lieutenant-colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered from the period from April 21, 1864, to March 21, 1865, would amount to $220.56, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, after making deduc- tions for income tax and overpayments subsequent to March 21, 1865, and allowing underpayments prior to April 21, 1864. Filed November 1, 1905. A true copy of findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 6th day of December, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of ClaiTtis. DANIEL MANS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11199. Daniel Mans v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court on the 18th day of March, 1903, by resolution of the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: [H. R. 10349, Fifty-seventli Congress, first session.] "A BII;I. There were taken from the claimant, Robert A. Dickson, in James County, Tenn. , during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, stores and supplies as above described which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of one hundred and forty-two dollars ($142). It does not appear that any payment has been made for any part thereof. By the Court. Filed May 14, 1906. A true copy. Test this 24th day of May, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clei'Tc Court of Claims. LYDIA DILLARD. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No 11267. Lydia Dillard v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fm*- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Lydia Dillard, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By THE Court. Filed November 19, 1906. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11267. Lydia Dillard v. The United States.]) STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 12th day of January, 1904. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 19th day of November, 1906, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of January, 1907. C. A. & F. W. Brandenburg appeared for claimant and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: That during the said war she was a resident of Maury County, State of Tennessee, and was the owner and possessor in said county and State of certain quartermaster stores and commissary supplies, which in the summer of 1863 were seized and appro- priated to the use of the military forces of the United States then stationed and oper- ating in said locality, according to the following statement: 1 horse $150. 00 The court, upon the evidence and after the consideration of briefs and after hearing the arguments of the respective counsel, makes the following FINDING op pact. ^ During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from the claimant in Maury 286 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. County, State of Tennessee, one horse, as above stated, which at the time and place of^taking was reasonably worth the sum of one hundred dollars ($100). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed January 14, 1907. A true copy. Test this 28th day of January, 1907. [seal.] • John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. WARHAM EASLEY. [Court of Claims. Congressional case Nos. 10957 and 11318. Warham Easley v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the miltary forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 4th day of March, 1904. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 26th day of October, 1903, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or fi-om whom they were alleged to have been taken , was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 12th day of January, 1905, Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by G. M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Loudon County, State of Tennessee, where he resided during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion; that during said war there were taken from petitioner by the United States military forces acting under proper authority, and converted to the use of the United States Army, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies, of the kinds and value below stated, to wit: Taken from the farms of petitioner, near Rutledge, Tenn., by Col. Frank Wolford's cavalry, in December, 1863, 823 bushels of wheat, at $1 per bushel $823. 00 Taken from river farm, belonging to claimant, about December 15, 1863, by troops under command of Capt. Amos B. Cole, of Gen. R. B. Potter's command, 2,000 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel 2, 000. 00 Taken by same troops from home farm near Rutledge, Tenn., about December 15, 1863 : 30 sheep, at $2 each 60. 00 28 head of cattle, averaging 650 pounds each, at $25 each 700. 00 Taken in December, 1864, from said farms by Captain Higgins, under command of General Burbridge, from Bean Station, 6 head of cattle, averaging 800 pounds each, at $25 each 150. 00 Delivered to Lieutenant True, A. A. Q. M., about December, 1864, 1,500 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel 1, 500. 00 Total 5, S33. 00 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. There was taken from the claimant in the county of Loudon, State of Tennessee, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character described in the petition, which ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 287 was then and there reasonably worth the sum of two thousand eight hundred and seven dollars ($2,807), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed January 16, 1905. A true copy. Test this 17th day of January, 1905. [seal.] Archibald Hopkins, Chief Clerk. EDWARD W. EGGLESTON. [Court of Claims. Edward W. Eggleston v. The United States. Congressional, No. 4879.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Edward W. Eggleston, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed January 14, 1907. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 4879. Edward W. Eggleston v. The United States.) statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for then- use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 10th day of July, 1888. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 14th day of January, 1907, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 30th day of January, 1907. C. A. & F. W. Brandenburg, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : That he is a citizen of the United States and during said war resided in Williamson County, State of Tennessee, and was the owner and possessor on his farm in said county and State of Tennessee of certain quartermaster stores and commissary supplies, which in the spring of 1863 were seized and appropriated to the use of the military forces of the United States then stationed and operating in said locality, according to the following bill of items: 4 Mules, at |150 each |600 1 horse 150 Total 750 The court, upon the evidence and after the consideration of briefs and after hearing the arguments of the respective counsel, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. There was taken from the claimant in Williamson County, State of Tennessee, dur- ing the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, property of the kind and character described in the peti- tion, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of five hun- dred and ninety dollars (|590). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed February 4, 1907. A true copy. Test this 16th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, _j -' Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 288 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. JOSEPH EWING. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11266. Joseph Ewing'r.2The7United[States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Joseph Ewing, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. ', Filed January 23, 1905. [Court of Claims. Congressional ease No. 11266. JosepliJEwing v. The United States.] ] statementJofJcase. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for theii- use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims. House of Representatives, on the 12th day of January, 1904. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 23d day of January, 1905, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States thjough- out said war. This case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 5th day of April, 1905. C. A. Brandenburg, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States, residing at Columbia, Maury County, State of Tennessee, where he resided during the late war of the rebellion; that at different times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from your petitioner quartermaster stores and commissaiy supplies valued at $300 and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows: Taken by Funkhouser's command, Maury County, Tenn., in 1863: 1 horse -. $150 1 mule 150 Total 300 The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. There was taken from the claimant in Maury County, State of Tennessee, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of ninety dollars (190). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed April 10, 1905. A true copy. Test this 22d day of December, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cla-k Court of Claims. JOHN B. McEWEN, EXECUTOR OF LEMUEL FARMER. [Court "of Claims. Congressional, No. 2547. John B. McEwen, executor of Lemuel Farmer, deceased, V. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Lemuel ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 289 Farmer, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loj^al to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed January 14, 1907. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 2547. John B. McEwen, executor estate of Lemuel Farmer, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 6th day of March, 1888. On a preliminary inquiry the coui't, on the 14th day of January, 1907, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 4th day of March, 1907. C. A. & F. W. Brandenburg, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- eral, by George E. Boren, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That said Lemuel Farmer, now deceased, during the said war was a resident of Williamson County, State of Tennessee, and the owner and possessor on his farm in said county and State of certain quartermaster stores and commissary supplies, which in the fall of 1864 were seized and appropriated to the use of the military forces of the United States then stationed and operating in said locality, according to the following bill of items: 200 panels of board fence, including posts $132. 00 4,000 rails (40 cords), at $3 per cord 120. 00 11,400 pounds of fodder and oats 114. 00 35 ban-els (175 bushels) of corn, at $1 a bushel 175. 00 1 fine saddle horse 150. 00 2 extra work mules, at |140 each , 280. 00 Total 971. 00 The court, upon the evidence and after the consideration of briefs and after hearing the arguments of the respective counsel, makes the following FINDING OF FACT. There was taken from the claimant's decedent in Williamson County, State of Tennessee, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States by proper authority for the use of the army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of three hundred and forty dollars ($340). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed March 11, 1907. t; A true copy. 1: Test this 12th day of December, A. D. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. W. F. FORBESS, ADMINISTRATOR. Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12296. W. F. Forbess, administrator of Archie B. Forbess, i.-k, , deceased, v. The United States.] statement of case. The following bill was referred to the court on the 31st day of March, 1906, by reso- lution of the House of Representatives under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: H. Rep. 543, 60-1 19 290 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIX CLAIMS. "[H. R. 15095, Fifty-seventli Congress, first session.] " A BILL for the relief of Archie B. Forbes. " jBe it enacted by the Senate andHovse of Representatives of the UnitedStates of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay to Archie B. Forbess, of Brinkley, Arkansas, the sum of fourteen thousand five hundred dollars for property taken for the use of United States Army, or such sum as may be equitably found due him by the United States Court of Claims, the evidence filed herewith to be duly considered." The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court May 29, 1906, in which lie makes the following allegations: That Archie B. Forbess, deceased, was aloyalcitizenof the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion; that about March 1, 1864, resided upon a farm about 25 miles from the city of Memphis, Tenn., when United States troops imder the command of General Sherman took and hauled away as supplies for the use of the army — 25 bales of lint cotton, weighing 12,500 pounds, A^alued at $1.10 per pound §13, 750 1 large young mule 250 Destroyed one mill valued at 500 Amounting in all to 14, 500 That said Archie B. Forbess has never been paid for said property or any part thereof. The case was brought to a hearing on lovalty and merits on the 18th day of Decem- ber, 1906. Charles W. Clagett appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. The coiKt, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that Archie B. Forbess. deceased, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. Dming the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority took from the claimant's "decedent in Memphis, Tenn., property as above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of twenty-six hundred dollars (§2,600); of which amount twenty-five hundred dollars (|2,500) is for cotton, but whether said cotton was used for hospital purposes or sold and the proceeds deposited in the Treasury does not appear from the evidence. II. This claim was not presented to any department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid, and no e^ddence has been offered by the claimant bearing upon the question of delay or laches in prosecuting «aid claim nor any facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. Filed December 24, 1906. A true copy. Test this 29th day of December, 1906. [sEAii.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claim?. RIAL FOSTER. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 112G4. Rial Foster v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, .finds that Rial Foster, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 291 same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughont said war. By the Court. Filed November 19, 1906. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11264. Rial Foster v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 12th day of January, 1904. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 19th day of November, 1906, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of January, 1907. C. A. & F. W. Brandenburg appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : That during said war he was a resident of Maury County, State of Tennessee, and was the owner and possessor in said county and State of certain quartermaster stores and commissary supplies which in the summer of 1863 were seized and appropriated to the use of the military forces of the United States then stationed and operating in said locality, according to the following bill of items: 2 horses, at $150 each • |300 The court, upon the evidence and after the consideration of briefs and after hearing the arguments of the respective counsel, makes the following FINDING OF FACT. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the army, took from claimant in Maury County, Tenn., property as above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of one hundred and thirty-five dollars ($135). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By THE Court. Filed January 14, 1907. A true copy. Test this 29th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JULIA GAILEY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11276. Julia Gailey, heir of Hiram Gailey, deceased, v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Hiram Gailey, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed January 9, 1905. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11276. Julia Gailey, sole heir of Hiram Gailey, deceased, v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the IFnited States for their use during the late 292 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 26th day of January, 1904. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 9th day of January, 1905, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of February, 1905. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. . The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : The petitioner is a citizen of the United States and now a resident of the county of Franklin, State of Arkansas: that she is the widow and sole heir of Hiram Gailey, deceased, who during the late civil war was a citizen of the United States, residing in Wayne 'County, State of Tennessee; that during said war the United States military forces, acting under proper authority, took from said decedent and converted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 1 bay horse S120. 00 100 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel 100. 00 600 bmidles of fodder 12. 00 Total 232. 00 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in the county of Wa^aie, State of Tennessee, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and thirty-two dollars fS232), for which no payment appears to have been made^ By the Court. Filed February 20, 1905. A true copy. Test this 6th day of December, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. GEORGE W. PEARSON, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 119S6. Heirs of Charles Gotthardt, deceased, r. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquuy, finds that Charles Gotthardt, deceased, the person alleged to luiA'e furnished such supplies or stores or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Gov- ernment of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed May 7, 1906. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 1198ti. George W. Pearson, administrator of Charles Gotthardt, deceased, r. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late" war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Rei:)resentatives, on the 9th day of January, 1906. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 7th day of May, 1906, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 293 The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 8th day of January, 1907. Ralston & Siddons, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: Petitioner is a resident of Perry County, Tenn., and is the duly qualified adminis- trator of the estate of Charles Gotthardt, deceased. Thi'oughout the war of the rebellion said Charles Gotthardt resided in Perry County, Tenn., and remained loyal to the Government of the United States. During said war, in May, 1863, forces of the United States Army, being a detach- ment of the Sixth Tennessee. Cavalry, commanded by Lieut. Col. W. K. M. Brecken- ridge, in Perry County, Tenn., took from said decedent for military purposes the following quartermaster stores, then and there reasonably worth the prices stated: Four hundred and fifty sides of sole leather, at $7 |3, 150 Feed for 80 men and horses, one day ' 50 Total .3, 200 No payment has been made for the same or any part thereof. That on June 16, 1868, the decedent presented both items of this claim to a State claims commission and the same was duly investigated and approved in full by the board of commissioners for Perry County, by the general claims commission for the State of Tennessee, and by the Hon. W. G. Brownlow, then governor of said State. That the decedent thereafter presented said claim to the Commissioner of Claims, act of March 3, 1871; that he died after the proof had been taken to establish the claim, and thereupon, although his heirs were in fact loyal, and one of his sons had been, as the testimony before said Commission disclosed, a Union soldier during the war, this claim, was disallowed because of alleged failure to prove the loyalty of said heirs. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OP PACT. There was taken from the claimant's decedent in Perry County, State of Tennessee, by the militaiy forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, leather as above described, which at the time and place of taking was reason- ably worth the sum of fifteen hundred and seventy-five (1,575) dollars, no part of which appears to have been paid. No allowance is made for meals furnished to men or for feed for horses. By the Court. Filed January 14, 1907. A true copy. Test this 21st day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOHN W. HARVEY, JR., ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 3318. John W. Harvey, jr., administrator of Z. H. German, deceased, v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Z. H. German, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Ci.iurt. Filed May 28, 1906. ICourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 3318. John W. Harvey, jr., administrator of Z. H. German, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the 'above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 294 AULiOWAisrcE or certain claims. the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 30th day of March, 1888. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 28th day- of May, 1906, found that the person alleged to have furnished the sapplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 14th day of November, 1906. C. A. and F. W. Brandenburg, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That claimant was a citizen of the United States and a resident of Williamson County, State of Tennessee, and was the owner and possessor on his farm in said county of certain mules and a horse, which in the spring of 1864 were seized and appropriated to the use of the military forces of the United States, then stationed and operating in said locality, according to the following bill of items: 3 serviceable mules, at |160 $480 1 serviceable horse : 150 Total 630 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and hearing arguments of the respective counsel, makes the following * FINDINGS OF FACT. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion there was taken from the claim- ant's decedent in Williamson County, State of Tennessee, by the military forces of the United States for the use of the Army, by proper authority, property as above described which, at the time and place of taking, was reasonably worth the sum of five hundred dollars ($500). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed December 3, 1906. A true copy. Test this 6th day of December, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, 'Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. W. 0. BATEY, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOHN HAYNES. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 4440. Heirs of John Hajmes v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquuy, finds that John Haynes, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed February 25, 1907. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 4440. W. O. Batey, administrator of John Haynes, deceased, V. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been taken by or fumisjied to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was trausniitted to the court by the Commit- tee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 1st day of May, 1888. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 25th day of February, 1907, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States tnroughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of October, 1907. ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 295 C. A. and F. W. Brandenburg, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- eral, by A. C. Campbell, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That said John Haynes, now deceased, during the said war was a resident of Ruther- ford County, State of Tennessee, and was the owner and possessor on his fai'm in said county and State of certain quartermaster stores and commissary supplies, which in the spring of 1863 were seized and appropriated to the use of the military forces of the United States then stationed and operating in said locality, according to the following bill of items: 1,200 bushels of corn $720 1,500 pounds of fodder 15Q Total 870 The court, upon the evidence and after the consideration of briefs and after hearing the arguments of the respective counsel, makes the following FINDING OF FACT. ^During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority, took from the claimant's dece- dent in Rutherford County, State of Tennessee, property of the kind and character above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of six hundred and seventy-five dollars (|675). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed October 28, 1907. A true copy. • Test this 16th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOHN G. HENSON, ADMINISTRATOR, ETC. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8846. C. J. and S,L. Oilson v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Catherine J. Gilson and Samuel L. Gilson, the persons alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, were loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed May 31, 1904. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8846. John G. Hanson, guardian of Mrs. Catherine J. Gilson (insane), stnd adfainistrator of estate of Samuel L. Gilson, deceased, v. The United States.] statement of case. The claims in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, were transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 26th day of March, 1892. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 31st day of May, 1904, found that Mrs. Catherine J. Gilson and Samuel L. Gilson, deceased, the persons alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, were loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 8th day of January, 1907. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant, John G. Henson, in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Knox, State of Tennessee; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting guardian of 296 AUiOWAisrcE of certain claims. the person and estate of Catherine J-. Gilson, now a person of insane mind, and is also the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of Samuel L. Gilson, deceased, the late huslaand of said Catherine J. Gilson; that said Catherine J. Gilson resides with petitioner in said county of Knox, State of Tennessee; that said Samuel L. Gilson was a resident of said county and State until the time of his death. That during the late civil war said Catherine J. Gilson and said Samuel L. Gilson were citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Knox, State of Ten- nessee; that during said war the United States military foi'ces, acting under proper authority, took from said Catherine J. Gilson and said Samuel L. Gilson, for use of the United States Army, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: Taken from farm about 7 miles west of Knoxville, Tenn., by troops under General Burnside, about November 16, 1863: 1,000 bushels of corn, at SI per bushel SI, 000 600 dozen sheaf oats, at 50 cents per dozen 300 20 tons of hay, at S20 per ton 400 Total 1, 700 That claims were presented by said Catherine J. GUson and said Samuel L. Gilson to the Quartermaster-General for compensation for the property so taken, but that said claims were rejected for the reason that said officer was not satisfied with the evidence offered in support of said claims. That of the property above mentioned said Catherine J. Gilson and said Samuel L. Gilson were equal owners in the corn and oats, but that said hay was the individual and sole property of said Catherine J. Gilson. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of coun- sel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS or FACT. There was taken from Catherine J. Gilson and Samuel L. Gilson (the latter of whom is deceased), in Knox County, Tenn., during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property as above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of nine hundred and forty-five dollars (S945), no part of which appears to have been paid. By the Court. Filed January 15, 1907. A true copy. Test this 22d y of January, 1907. [sEAi*.] John Randolph, Assistant Clei'k Court of Claims. W. R. HENSON, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5183. W. R. Henson, administrator of John Henson, deceased, V. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that John Henson, deceased, the person alleged to have fm'nished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. FUed April 11, 1905. (Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5183. W. R. Henson, administrator of estate of John Ilenson, deceased, v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the al)ove-entitlod case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fumished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 10th day of July, 1888. ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 297 On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 11th day of April, 1904, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or'stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 6th day of November, 1905. Cyrus Snyder, esq., appeared for claimant, Moyer & Consaul, of counsel, and the Attorney-General, by P. M. Ashford, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant, in his petition, makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Sequatchie, State of Tennessee; that petitioner is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting admin- istrator of the estate of John Henson, deceased, late of said county and State, under appointment by county court of said county; that during the late civil war said dece- dent resided in said county and State and was a citizen of the United States; that dm-ing said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent and converted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: Taken from farms of decedent on east side of Waldens Ridge, about 30 miles south- east of Chattanooga, by troops under command of Capt. William Pryor, Sixth Tennes- see Mounted Infantry, by troops under General Wilder, by troops under command of Capt. L. S. Kilbourne, Seventy-second Indiana Infantry, by Colonel Palmer and wagon trains, in the fall of 1863, after the battle of Chickamauga, and in the winter of 1864 and 18'65: 49,950 rails, at |3 per 100 |1, 378. 50 500 cords standing wood, at 75 cents per cord 375. 00 84 bushels of wheat, at $1.50 per bushel 126. 00 300 bushels of old corn, at 75 cents per bushel 225. 00 4,200 bushels of corn, at 75 cents per bushel 3, 150. 00 845 bushels of corn, at 75 cents per bushel 633. 00 500 bushels thrashed oats, at 50 cents per bushel 250. 00 2 mules, at |125 each .■ . . / • 250. 00 1 black mare 85. 00 1 black mare 125. 00 1 sorrel mare 100. 00 Total 6, 697. 50 The court upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of coun- sel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Sequatchie County, State of Ten- nessee, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of two thousand nine hundred and ninety dollars (|2,990), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed December 4, 1905. A true copy. Test this 5th day of January, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOHX A. HERROD. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7290. John A. Herrod v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for then- use during the^late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that John A. Herrod, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed December 10, 1900. 298 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIK CLAIMS. [Court oi Claims. Congressional, No. 7290. John A. Herrod v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the aboA"e-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use dui'ing the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the com't by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 17th day of February, 1890. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 10th day of December, 1900, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of- the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 8th day of February, 1905. George A. & William B. King, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That during the civil war he was a resident of the State of Tennessee and did not give any aid or comfort to the said rebellion, but was throughout that war loyal to the Government of the United States. That the following property belonging to him was taken from him by the United States and used by the said Army, the date, place, and command being particularly stated below: In Rutherford County, in the State of Tennessee, on or about 25th day of January, 1863, by United States "forces, to wit, F. D. Preston, A. A. Q. M. of Colonel Wilder's regiment, viz: 2 bay mare mules, at $150 each |300. 00 1 sorrel stallion 300. 00 Total 600. 00 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following riNDING OF FACTS. There was taken from the claimant in the County of Rutherford, State of Tennes- see, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of four hundred dollars ($400). No payment appears to haA^e been made therefor. By the Court. Filed February 13, 1905. A true copy. Test this 8th day of Februaiy, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. CHARLES W. HEWGLEY. [Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 5038. Charles W. Hewgley v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for then- use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Charles W. Hewgley. the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the saine are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed December 10, 1900. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5038. Charle,? W. Hewgley v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 299 late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 10th day of July, 1888. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 18th day of December, 1906, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brotight to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of January, 1907. C. A. & F. W. Brandenburg, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Judge John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That during the war he was a resident of Wilson County, State of Tennessee, and was the owner and possessor on his farm in said county and State of certain quarter- master stores and commissary supplies, which, in the fall of 1862, were seized and appropriated to the use of the military forces of the United States, then stationed and operating in said locality, according to the following bill of items: 6 hogs, at 112.25 each $73. 50 4 sheep, at |2.50 each 10. 00 5 barrels of corn, at $2.50 each 12. 50 250 barrels of corn, at $2.50 625. 00 2 mules, at $150 300. 00 1 barrel of salt 10. 00 Total 1, 031. 00 The court, upon the evidence and after the consideration of briefs and after hearing the arguments of the respective counsel, makes the following FINDING OF FACT. There was taken from the claimant in Wilson County, State of Tennessee, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property as above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of five hundred and eighty dollars ($580). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed January 14, 1907. A true copy. Test this 24th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. DAVID H. HILDERBRAND. fCourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 188. David H. Hildebrandt v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fm-nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that David H. Hildebrandt, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed December 14, 1885. Court of Claims. Congressional, Nos. 188 and 12069, consolidated. David H. Hilderbrand v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was first transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 22d day of December, 1884, for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1883, and commonly known as the Bowman Act. 300 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIKT CLAIMS, On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 14th day of December, 1885, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits, and findings of fact were filed February 1, 1886, which findings were certified to the Speaker of the House of Rep- resentatives. On January 23, 1906, the claim was again referred to this covuct by said Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives for further proceedings under the terms of said act approved March 3, 1883, and commonly known as the Bowman Act. The case was brought to a second hearing on its merits on the 7th day of May, 1906. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : That he is a citizen of the United States, now residing in the county of Sacramento, State of California; that during the late civil war he was a citizen of the United States, residing in the county of Shelby, State of Tennessee; that during said war the United States miltary forces, under proper authority, took from petitioner and converted to- the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and supplies of the kinds and values below described, to wit: 3 horses, at $145 each $435. 00 2 mules, at §155 each 310. 00 Total. 745. 00 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. I. There was taken from the claimant during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, in the county of Shelby, State of Tennessee, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority, supplies of the kind and character above described, which were then and there reasonably worth the sum of four hundred and eighty dollars (§480), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed May 14, 1906. A true copy. Test this 19th day of May, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clnk Court of Claims. HEIRS OF THOMAS HORD. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10982. Sarah Bibb, Ada B. Ewing, Alice G. Warner, Benja- min M. Hord, Mildred Washington, and Thomas E. Hord, sole heirs of Thomas Hord, deceased, v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to ha-\e been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 3d day of February, 1903. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 23d day of May, 1904, found that the per- son alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom thej' were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 31st day of January. 1905.. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: That they are the children and sole heirs of Thomas Hord, deceased, who resided at the time of his death, and during the late civil war, in Rutherford County, State of Tennessee. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 301 That during the late civil war the militai');' forces of the United States, by proper authority, took from the said Thomas Hord, in said county and State, and appropri- ated to the use of the Army for hospital purposes 37,000 pounds of seed cotton of the value of 15 cents per pound, amounting to the sum of 15,550. That said cotton was taken byDoctor Wood, of the medical department of Gen. W. S. Rosencrans's command, in January, 1863. The court, upon the evidence, aiid after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, in Rutherford County, State of Tennessee, took from the claimants' decedent property of the kind and character above described, whicji was then and there reasonably worth the sum of two thou- sand nine hundred and thirteen dollars (S2,913). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed February 6, 1905. A true copy. Test this 3d day of June, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. FINDINGS IN CASE OF JOHN HUGHES.. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-78. John Hughes v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was broiight to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of April, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Shelby, in the State of Tennessee. 2. That he, being the captain of Company A, Twenty-second Regiment of Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Kentucky as major thereof on October 15, 1863, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until February 24, 1864, when he was mustered in as such; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of major during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a captain, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of major. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OP PACT. 1. John Hiighes, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the coimty of Shelby, in the State of Tennessee. 2. On October 15, 1863, the said John Hughes was captain of Company A, Twenty- second Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered into the service — to wit, on February 25, 1864 — the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L.', p. 734). The major of said Twenty-second Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of major devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of major of said Twenty-second Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 302 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The governor of the State of Kentucky also issued to this claimant a commission as major Twenty-second Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said October 15, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as major of said Twenty-second Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of major until he was mustered into the service as such February 15, 1864. 4. If the said John Hughes should be deemed major of Twenty-second Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a captain, which he has received, and that of a major, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from October 15, 1863, to February 14, 1864, would amount to $43.33 (forty-three dollars and thirty-three cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. By the Court. Filed Aprill, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 2d day of April, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. BENJAMIN F. LILLARD. ICourt of Claims. Congressional, 11173. Benjamia F. Lillard, administrator of the estate of Benja- min Lillard, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court on the 18th day of March, 1903, by resolution of the United States House of Representatives under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: " [H. R. 10128. Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] "A BILL Authorizing the heirs of Benjamin Lillard, of Teimessee, to present their claims to the Court of Claims. ' ' Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the heirs of Benjamin Lillard be, and they are hereby, authorized and empowered to present to the Court of Claims for adjudication their claim for property lost, destroyed, and taken and used by the United States forces during the late rebellion, said claim not to amount to more than seventy thousand eight hundred and ninety-five dollars, and all statutes of limitation are hereby waived. Jurisdiction is hereby conferred on the Court of Claims to hear and determine the said claim upon its merits, the loyalty of the parties being established. In consid- ering the claim any testimony taken by the agent of the Quartermaster-General, the affidavits of witnesses on file, and the declarations filed in the departments of the Quartermaster-General and the Commissary-General, and the petitions filed before the Southern Claims Commission by the administrator of Benjamin Lillard, deceased, shall be considered by the court competent evidence." The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court March 19, 1903, alleging, in substance, that he is a citizen of the United States, that Benjamin Lillard, de- ceased, was a loyal citizen of the United States during the war of the rebellion; that during said war the United States forces, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, in Rutherford County, State of Tennessee, took from said decedent the following property: 5,000 bushels of corn seized in 1862 by General Mitchell's division of General Buell's army, at 70 cents per bushel $3, 500. 00 24,000 pounds of hay seized by same forces, at 1 cent per pound 240. 00 The following property seized by General Rosecrans's arrav January to June, 1863: 600 pounds of bacon hams, at 35 cents per pound 150. 00 11 pork hogs, at $20 each 220. 00 200 head of stock hogs, at $5 per head 1, 000. 00 53 head of cattle, at $10 per head : .' 530. 00 100 bushels of sweet potatoes, at $3 per bushel 300. 00 500 bushels of wheat, at $1 per bushel 500. 00 1,500 bushels of corn, at $1.50 per bushel 2, 250. 00 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAUST CLAIMS. 303 The following property seized by General Rosecrans's army January to June, 1863 — Continued. 21,000 pounds of fodder, at 1 cent per pound $210. 00 20 tons of hay, at $10 per ton. . ._. 200. 00 15,500 cords of green wood or timber taken from 155 acres of land on homestead tract 1^ to 2^ miles from corporation of Murfreesboro, Tenn., at $2.50 per cord 38, 750. 00 1,890 cords of fence rails from same tract, at dry -fuel rates, at $4 per cord .' 7, 560. 00 1,050 cords of houses, at $4 per cord 4, 220. 00 33 cords of green wood taken from 22 acres on Rick's tract, about three- fourths mile from corporation of said Murfreesboro, at $3 per cord. . . 9, 900. 00 305 cords fence rails taken from Rick's farm of 109 acres, at dry-fuel rates, at |4 per cord .' 200. 00 145 cords fence rails -taken from MuUins's tract, about 4 miles from Murfreesboso, at dry-fuel rates, at $3 per cord 425. 00 Houses from same tract equal to 50 cords, at dry -fuel rates, at $3 per cord 150. 00 1,500 cords mixed with cedar from Peak tract near Federal Cemetery, at $3 per cord 4, 500. 00 180 cords of fence rails from same, at $4 per cord 720. 00 100 cords of houses on same tract, at $4 per cord. 400. 00 10,000 pounds of lint cotton seized and taken awav bv said army, at II per pound ' . . .' 10, 000. 00 Total 87, 155 . 00 The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 16th day of Novem- ber, 1904. Benjamin F. Lillard, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- Oeneral, by P. M. Ashford, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP PACT. I. It appears from the evidence that Benjamin Lillard, deceased, the person from whom the property is alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in the county of Rutherford, State of Tennessee, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the mili- tary forces of the United States for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of sixteen thousand eight hundred and sixty -five dollars ($16,865). No payment appears to have been made therefor. The above findings are exclusive of the cotton alleged in the petition to have been taken by said military forces, as to which cotton the court makes no finding. By the Court. Filed December 5, 1904. A true copy. Test this 19th day of December, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clei'h Court of Claims. E. M. McNAMEE, ADMINISTRATOR. . [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8425. John Krider v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that John Krider, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed January 12, 1903. 304 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIIST CLAIMS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8425. E. M. McNamee, administrator of estate of John Krider, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for theii" use dui'ing the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on ^^'ar Claims of the House of Representatives on the 12th day of March, 1891. On a preliminary inquuy the court, on the 12th day of January, 1903, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 19th day of November, 1906. Moyers & Consaul, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by F. De C. Faust, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Fayette, State of Tennessee ; that petitioner is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting adminis- trator of the estate of John Krider, deceased, late of said county and State, under and by virtue of appointment by the probate court in and for said county and State, of which appointment petitioner furnishes record evidence; that during the late civil war said decedent resided in said county and State; that during said \var the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent and con- verted to the use of the United States Army commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: Taken by troops under command of General Grant, at La Grange, Tenn., about December, 1862, or January, 1863: 1,000 pounds bacon, at 12J cents per pound $125 46 ban-els flour, at |12 per barrel ". 552 6 hogsheads sugar, 6,000 pounds, at 15 cents per pound 900 6 barrels molasses 240 1 cow 50 1 cow 50 Total 1, 917 The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDING OF FACT. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion there was taken from the claimant's decedent in Fayette County, Tenn., by the military forces of the United States for the use of the Army property as above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and twenty-one dollars ($221). It does not appear that any payment has been made for any part thereof. By the Court. Filed December 3, 1906. A true copv. Test this 19th day of December, 1906. [seal.] John* Randolph, ^ ^ Assistant Clerk Co^irt of Claims. ; WILLIAM H. LANDRUM. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5125. William H. Landrum v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been token by or fm-- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for tl\f suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Wil- liam H. Landrum, the person alleged to liave furnished such supplies or stores, or ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 305 from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. ' Filed .December 8, 1902. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11944. William H. Landrum v. The United States.] STATEMEN.T OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion , was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 9th day of January, 1906. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 8th day of December, 1902, found that the person alleged to have fui'nished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 19th day of November, 1906. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is now and at all times hereinafter mentioned has been a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Gibson, State of Tennessee; that during the late civil war the United States military forces, by proper authority, took from petitioner and converted to the use of the United States Army commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 2,475 pounds of bacon, at 20 cents per pound $495 160 pounds lard, at 20 cents per pound 32 Total.. 527 (Taken from farm of petitioner, about 2 miles from Dyer, Gibson County, Tenn., about January, 18G3,,by command of Captain Beasley, U. S. Army.) The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. There was taken from the claimant in Gibson County, State of Tennessee, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character described in the petition, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and fifty -seven dollars (|257). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By THE Court. Filed February 11, 1907. A true copy. Test this 19th day of February, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ANNIS LAWRENCE. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8415. Annis Lawrence v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Annis Lawi'ence, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed March 9, 1903. H. Rep. 543, 60-1- -20 306 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. [In the Court of Clftims. Congressional case No. 8415. Annis Lawrence r. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late civil war, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 2d day of March, 1891. On a preliminary inquiry, the court, on the 9th day of March, A. D. 1903, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores or from whom they were alleged to have been taken was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of Februarj^, A. D. 1905. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by E. C. Brandenburg, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. Claimant, in her petition, makes the following allegations: That during said war the United States troops under command of General Quimby, when camped at Moscow, Tenn., in the winter of 1863 and 1864, took from petitioner commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 70 hogs, 100 pounds each, at 10 cents per pound $700. 00 1,000 pounds of pork, at 10 cents per pound 100. 00 5 bushels of potatoes 5. 00 5 bushels of shelled corn 5. 00 Total 810. 00 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. There was taken from the claimant, in the county of Fayette. State of Tennessee, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of four hundred and fifteen dollars (|415), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed February 20, 1905. A true copy. Test this 12th day of January, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JAMES E. MEACHAM. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11550. James E. Meacham v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. On April 26, 1904, the following bill was referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate under the act of March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. A BILL For the relief of James E. Meacham. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and du-ected to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated to James E. Meacham, of Hamilton County, Tennessee, the sum of one thousand six hundred dollars, in full payment for the use and occupation of his premises at Chatta- nooga, Tennessee, and for the taking and use of his property by the Union Army during the civil war. The claimant appeared and filed his petition May 31, 1904. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 18th day of January, 1906. William E. Richardson appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by John Q. Thompson, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 307 The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Eden Park, a suburb of Chattanooga, Hamilton County, State of Tennessee. 2. That during the civil war petitioner resided in Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Tenn., and throughout said war he remained loyal to the Government of the United States and gave no aid or comfort to the rebellion. 3. That during said war, in the month of September, 1863, petitioner was the owner and in possession of certain premises in said city of Chattanooga, the same being the north half of the block bounded by Catherine, Long, Aiken, and William streets, described by metes and bounds as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of Catherine and William streets, thence south on the east line of William street 140 feet, thence due east 280 feet to the west line of Long street, thence north along said west line of Long street 140 feet to the south- west corner of Long and Catherine streets, thence west along the south line of Catherine street 280 feet to the place of beginning; that said premises were then improved by a frame dwelling house, a smokehouse, a stable, and buggy house, and had been, in the year 1860, purchased by claimant from one Rufus Tankersly; that said dwelling house and other improvements were worth $1,600 and said land worth about $400. 4. In September, 1863, immediately after the battle of Chickamauga, forces of the United States Army occupied said premises and used and occupied the same for army hospital purposes for several months, and thereafter, having torn down and removed the buildings, fences and improvements thereon, used and occupied said premises ' for camping piirposes for several months, for which occupancy the petitioner claims as rent the sum of $20 per month for six months. 5. That during said occupancy, as above stated, the said troops tore down and removed from said premises the house and other valuable improvements, making the same more suitable for camping purposes, which said acts were in the nature of a vol- untary waste, for which the Government is liable to make compensation under its implied obligation to leave said premises in the same condition as when received from the petitioner, with the exception of the reasonable wear and tear to which they would have been subject, and for such waste there is due the petitioner the value of said improvements as follows: Dwelling house $1, 200 Outhouses and fences 400 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of coun- sel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS or FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant, James E. Meacham, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the late war of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of the claimant's buildings in Chattanooga, Tenn., and used and occupied the same and tore said buildings down and used tlie material therein. The reasonable rental value of said buildings during the time they were so occupied and the value of the material used by the Army was the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars ($750), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. I Filed January 29, 1906. A true copy. Test this 1st day of February, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph. Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MORA B. FARISS. ADMINISTRATRIX. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11280. Mora B. Fariss, administratrix of James P. Moore, deceased, v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that James P. Moore, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or 308 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Gov- ernment of the United States throughout said war. By the CotmT. Filed May 1, 1905. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11280. Mora B. Fariss, administratrix of James P. Moore, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on AVar Claims, House of Representatives, on the 26th day of January, 1904. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 1st day of May, 1905, found that the person alleged to "have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of May, 1905. C. A. Brandenburg, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by F. W. Col- lins, esq., his assistant, and imder his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- tion of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition m'akes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States, and a resident of Columbia, Maury County, State of Tennessee; that James P. Moore, deceased, resided during the late war of tfie rebellion in said Maury County, State of Tennessee, and was loyal to the United States throughout said war; that at different times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from said James P. Moore quartermaster stores and supplies valued at §5,831.74 and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows: 1,773 J bushels of corn, at 90 cents per bushel $1 .596. 00 3,485 bundles of fodder 54. 85 15 horses and mules, at §150 each 2, 250. 00 4,251 feet of lumber, at 2* cents per foot 106. 27 16,154 rails, at 3 cents each 484. 62 13 cattle, at $20 each 270. 00 55 hogs, at §10 each • 550.00 Meat from 20 hogs 200. 00 30 sheep, at $5 each 150. 00 150 bushels of wheat, at SI per bushel 150. 00 4 barrels of molasses, at §5 per barrel 20. 00 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Maury County, State of Tennes- see, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above descril^ed, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of twenty-one hundred dollars (§2,100), for which no payment appears to have been made. By THE Court. Filed December 11, 1905. A true copy. Test this 2d day of January, 1906. [seal]. John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. LOUIS NELSON, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11317. Samuel B. Nelson v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use diuing the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the comt, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 309 Samuel B. Nelson, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed December 12, 1904. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11317. Louis Nelson, administrator of the estate of Samuel B. Nelson, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 4th day of March, 1904. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 12th day of December, 1904, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of March, 1905. Cyrus Snyder, esq., appeared for claimant; Moyers & Consaul, of counsel, and the Attorney-General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of Samuel B. Nelson, deceased, late of the county of Rutherford, State of Tennes- see, where said decedent resided during the late civil war; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent and converted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and commis- sary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 6 good horses, at |125 each $750 2 good horses, at |150 each 300 3,000 bushels of corn, at 50 cents per bushel 1, 500 10 fat beef cattle 336 8 fat hogs 60 20 sheep 50 Total. 2, 996 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OF FACT. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, Samuel B. Nelson, in Ruther- ford County, State of Tennessee, by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property as above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of two thousand one hun- dred and seventy dollars (|2,170). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed April 10, 1905. A true copy. Test this 6th day of December, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALEXANDER M. OWEN. [Court of Claims. Congressional No. 9767. Alexander M. Owen v. The United States.] This case being a claim far supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Alex- ander M. Owen, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from 310 AIiLOWANCE OP CEETAIN CLAIMS. wlioin the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed May 23, 1907. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9767. Alexander M. Owen v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use diu-ing the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives, on the 19th day of April, 1.898. On the preliminary inquiry the court, on the 23d day of May, 1904, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of October, 1907. Moyers & Consaul, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by S. S. Ashbaugh, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States and is now a resident of the county of John- son, State of Texas; that during the late civil war petitioner was a citizen of the United States, residing in the county of Tipton, State of Tennessee; that dm-ing said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took fi-om petitioner and con- verted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: Taken in April, 1863, by soldiers vmder command of General Lawler: 2 sorrel horses, at $200 each $400. 00 1 bay horse 150. 00 Taken in December, 1863, by Captain Templeton from Fort Pillow: 1 bay horse 150. 00 Total 700. 00 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OF FACT. During the late civil war the military forces of the United States, by proper author- ity, for the use of the army, took from the claimant in Tipton County, State of Tennes- see, property of -the kind and character described in the petition, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of four hundred and fortv dollars ($440). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed October 28, 1907. A true copy. Test this 20th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MARY PARKER. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11277. Miiry Parker v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above -entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 26th day of January, 1904. On a preliminary inquiry, the court, on the 16th day of March, 1903, foundjthat Mary Parker, the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 311 whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war, her loyalty having been decided by the court in the Eveline Hixon case. No. 10496. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of November, 1904. G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by E. C. Brandenburg, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interest of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in Hamilton County, State of Tennessee, where she resided during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion; that at different times during said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took from her certain quartermaster stores and commissary sup- plies and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows: One-fourth of 143 acres of timber, 25 cords per acre, 893| cords of wood, at $1 per cord 1893. 75 (Taken in 1863 and 1864 by the commands of Generals Hooker, Geary, Howard, and others.) The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel of both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. There was taken from the claimant, in Hamilton County, State of Tennessee, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the army, property as above de- scribed, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of six hundred and fifty-six dollars (|656). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed December 5, 1904. A true copy. Test this 30th day of December, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerh Court of Claims. A. P. YOUNG. ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 7557. John R. Pearson «. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the supiDression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that John R. Pearson, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed May 12, 1902. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12007. A. P. Young, administrator of estate of John R. Pearson, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 9th day of Jan- uary, 1906. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 12th day of May, 1902, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 12th day of November, 1906. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by A. C. Campbell, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 312 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the county of Shelby, State of Tennessee; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of John R. Pearson, deceased, late of Fayette County, State of Tennessee. That said John R. Pearson dming the late civil war resided in the county of Fay- ette, State qf Tennessee; that dming said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent for use of the Army, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: Taken by William Manning, lieutenant and acting assistant quartermaster, Thii-d Brigade, General Quimby commanding, about Nov. 19, 1862: 150 bushels corn, at $1 per bushel $150. 00 7,000 pounds fodder, at 2 cents per pound 140. 00 1 good horse 150. 00 4 valuable mules, at |175 each 700. 00 Taken about January 2, 1863: 1,000 bushels corn, at §1 per bushel 1, 000. 00 7,800 pounds fodder, at 2 cents per pound 156. 00 1 horse 150. 00 Taken about December 31, 1862: 50 bushels potatoes, at $1 per bushel 50. 00 500 pounds pork, at 10 cents per pound 50. 00 25 pounds of coffee, at 50 cents per pound 12. 50 50 pounds sausage, at 50 cents per pound 25. 00 300 pounds dried beef, at 15 cents per pound 45. 00 300 pounds bacon, at 20 cents per pound 60. 00 500 pounds fresh beef, at 8 cents per pound 40. 00 20 pounds of sugar, at 25 cents per pound 5. 00 1,700 pounds fresh pork, at 10 cents per pound 170. 00 Taken about July 5, 1864: 200 pounds bacon, at 40 cents per pound 80. 00 12 bushels Irish potatoes, at §1 per bushel 12. 00 300 pounds jjork, at 15 cents per pound 45. 00 25 pounds of coffee, at 60 cents per pound 15. 00 15 pounds sugar, at 40 cents per pound 6. 00 Taken by Colonel Nobles about November 10, 1864: 2 good mules, at $125 each 250. 00 Total 3, 311. 50 The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon hoih sides, makes the following FINDING OF FACT. I. There were taken from the claimant's decedent, John R. Pearson, hi Fayette County, Tenn.-, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States for the use of the Army, stores and supplies as above described, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of two thousand five hundred and seventy-nine dollars ($2,579). It does not appear that any payment has been made for any part thereof. By the Court. Filed November 19, 1906. A true copv. Test this 4th day of December, ]906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claivis. WILLIAM RAINES. [Court of Claims. Congressioual, No. 11286. William Kaines v. The United States.] Thi8,case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the militarv forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that William Kaines, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIISr CLAIMS. 313 whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed November 6, 1905. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11286. William Raines v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during th§ late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 9th day of February, 1904. On a preliminary inquiry, the court, on the 6th day of November, 1905, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 12th day of April, 1906. Moyers & Consaul, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Claiborne, State of Tennessee; that during the late civil war he was a citizen of the county of Knox, State of Kentucky; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from petitioner, for the use of the United States Army, quartermaster stores of the kind and value below stated, to wit: 310 bushels of corn, at 50 cents per bushel |155 The CQurt, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military authorities of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from claimant, William Raines, property as above described, which was at the time and place of taking reasonably worth the sum of one hundred and fifty- five dollars ($155). It does not appear that any payment has been made for any part thereof. By the Court. Filed April 23, 1906. A true copy. Test this 29th day of May, 1906. , [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. FRANK READ, ADMINISTRATOR OF JAMES S. READ. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 4067. James S. Read v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late \yar for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that James S. Read, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. [Covirt of Claims. Congressional case No. 4067. Frank Read, administrator estate of James S. Read, deceased, v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 314 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS, the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 20th day of April, 1888. On a preliminary inquiry the covirt, on the 29th day of April, 1907, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the GoA^ernment of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 28th day of October, 1907. C. A. & F. W. Brandenburg, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by Clai'k McKercher, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That said James S. Read, deceased, during the said war was a resident of Davidson County, Tenn. , and was the owner and possessor on his farm in said county and State of certain quartermaster stores and commissary supplies, which in the fall of 1864 were seized and appropriated to the use of the military forces of the United States then stationed and operating in said locality, according to the following bill of items: 2 horses, at $125 $250 1 wagon, iron axle 100 3 head of beef cattle 90 15 pork hogs 75 75 bushels of corn 75 2,000 feet cedar lumber, cost 160 1 ton of hay .' 24 3,000 cedar rails 150 10,000 feet of plank fence, cedar posts 250 150 bushels of coal, at 60 cents 90 3 cords of wood, at $10 30 Total 1, 294 The court, upon the evidence and after the consideration of briefs and after hearing the arguments of the respective counsel, makes the following FINDINGS OF P.\CT. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States by proper authority took for the use of the Army from claimant's decedent in Davidson County, State of Tennessee, the property described in the petition, the reasonable value of which at the time and place mentioned above was the sum of seven hundred and fifteen dollars ($715). No payment appears to have been made for any part thereof. By the Court. \ Filed November 4, 1907. A true copy. Test: This 16th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. HEIRS OF JANE E. RODES. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. SSIS. Estate of Jtine E. Rodes, deceased, r. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use duriiig the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court on a preliminary inquiry linds that Jane E. Rodes, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the said war. Bv THE Court. Filed May 25, 1903. [In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5518. John B. Atchison and Clifton R. Atchison, heirs of Mrs. Jane Elizabeth Rodes, deceased, r. The United States.] STATEMENT. This claim, which was referred to the court on August 1. 1888, by the Committee on ^A'ar Claims of the House of Representatives, under the provisions of the act of Con- ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 315' gress approved March 3, 1883, entitled "An act to afford assistance and relief to Con- gress and the Executive Departments in the investigation of claims and demands against the Government," was brought to a hearing by the court on the 26th day of April, 1905, with respect to the merits of the same, the loyalty of the original claimant having been found by the court on the 25th day of May, 1903. At such hearing on the merits Benjamin Carter, esq. , appeared as attorney for the claimants, and the Attorney- General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, his assistant, appeared for the defense and protec- tion of the United States. The present claimants prosecute the claim as residuary legatees under the will of Clifton Kodes, who was the son and sole heir of Mrs. Jane Elizabeth Rodes. They allege in their petition that there were taken from said Mrs. Rodes by the United States military forces and applied to proper uses of the Quartermaster's Department of the Army, in the autumn and winter of 1864, mules, horses, wagons, and a double set of harness, cord wood, and timbers for the construction of bridges and trestles, all the property of said Mrs. Rodes, which at that time were of the aggregate value of $3,360, and that nothing has ever been paid for or on account of such property. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. I. The claimants, John B. Atchison and Clifton R. Atchison, are residuary legatees under the will of Clifton Rodes, deceased, who was the sole heir of Mrs. Jane Eliza- beth Rodes, deceased. Said Mrs. Rodes resided during the war of the rebellion on a farm belonging to her in Giles County, Tenn. She was a widow at that time and never remarried. Said Clifton Rodes was her only child. The estate of said Clifton Rodes has heretofore been fully administered. II. There was taken from the farm of the decedent in Giles County, State of Tennes- see, by the military forces of the United States during the war of the rebellion, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character described in the petition, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of two thousand one hundred and forty dollars ($2,140). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed May 1, 1906. A true copy. Test this 9th day of June, 1906. TsBAL.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims, LAURA E. ROULSTON, ADMINISTRATRIX. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5114. James W. Roulston v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that James W. Roulston, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed May 15, 1903. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 5114. Laura E. Roulston, administratrix of James W. Roulston deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 10th day of July, 1888. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 15th day of May, 1893, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. 316 AliLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 18th day of December, 1906. George A. and William B. King, esqrs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: That said claimant's decedent was, during the civil war, a resident of the State of Tennessee, and did not give any aid or comfort to the said rebellion, but was through- out that war loyal to the Government of the United States. That the following property belonging to claimant's decedent was taken from him in the county of Marion, State of Tennessee, by and for the. use of the United States Army, to wit:j Taken by the command of Gen. A. McDowell Cook, August 15, 1862: 1,800 pounds of fresh pork $144. 00 200 pounds of fresh pork 12. 00 144 bushels of corn 108. 00 Taken by the command of General Negley, June 4, 1862: 1 sorrel horse : 100. 00 Total 364. 00 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from claimant's decedent in Marion County, State of Tennessee, property as above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and seventy-two dollars (1272). • II. A claim for said property was presented to the Commissioners of Claims and by them rejected because the claimant testified that he had taken the benefit of the bank- rupt law, and that though they did not believe the items of this claim were included in his list of assets, it made no difference, for he was divested of all title in the claim, whether he did or not. The claim was presented to the Fiftieth Congress and by that Congress referred to the court as aforesaid. By the Court. Filed December 24, 1906. A true copy. Test this 2d day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. C. H. CORN, ADMINISTRATOR. tCourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 1.559. C. H. Corn, administrator of estates of W. W. Sharp, deceased, and John Chitwood, deceased, v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for then- use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that W. W. Sharp and John Chitwood, deceased, and Susan Sharp, Leodicea Sharp, Robert Sharp, Margaret Sharp, George Sharp, Sarah Sharp, and William Sharp, the persons alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, were loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed March 2] , 1904. t Court of Claims. Congressional, No. l.^SO. C. H. Corn, administrator cum testamento annexo, of the estate of W. \V. Sharp, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 317 Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 4th day of March, 1887. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 21st day of March, 1904, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 14th day of January, 1907. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by A. C. Camp- bell, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant, in his petition, makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States residing in Franklin County, Tenn.; that he is the administrator of the estate of W. W. Sharp, deceased; that said decedent resided during the late civil war in said county and State; that at different times dur- ing said period the United States military forces, by proper authority, took from said decedent and his estate quartermaster stores and commissary supplies for the use of the United States Array, of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: ^ — ^ 360 cords of wood, at |4 per cord |1, 440 40 fat sheep 140 2 cattle, at $30 each 60 100 bushels of potatoes, at |1 per bushel 100 300 pounds of pork, at 10 cents per pound 30 1 fine young stallion 150 1 sorrel mare 150 1 sorrel mule 150 Lumber and timber taken from 2-story dwelling, kitchen, smokehouse, and stable ' 400 Total 2, 620 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP PACT. I. During the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from claimant's decedent, for use of the Army, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds mentioned in the petition, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of one thousand "two hundred and forty-eight dollars ($1,248), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed January 21, 1907. A true copy. Test this 29th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. WILLIAM M. MOSS, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOHN SMITH. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11193. Estate of Jolm Smith v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that John Smith, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed April 9, 1906. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11193. William M. Moss, administrator cf John Smith, deceased, V. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. This is a claim for stores and supplies alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States during the late civil war. 318 AT.T.OWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. On February 20, 1903, the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representa- tives referred to this court, under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act, the following bill: "[II. R. llltS, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of John Smith. ' ' Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay John Smith, of Jackson, Tennessee, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of three thousand four hundred and fifty dollars, being for stores and supplies alleged to have been furnished United States troops during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion." The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court January 13, 1904, in which he makes the following allegations: That he is the administrator of the estate of John Smith, deceased, who resided in Madison County, State of Tennessee, during the late civil war; that at different times -during the period of said war there was taken from his decedent by the United States military forces, by proper authority, for the use of the army, stores and supplies of the value of S3, 450, as follows: 2,000 pounds manufactured tobacco, at 50 cents per pound $1, 000 Stock of goods, consisting of hats, shoes, clothing, groceries, provisions, etc., valued at 2, 000 (Taken about June, 1863. ) 1 mare 200 1 mare 150 1 pony 100 Total 3, 450 On April 9, 1906, on a preliminary hearing, the court found that John Smith, de- ceased, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the civil war. The case was brought to a hearing on merits on February 5, 1907. Watson E. Coleman, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. M. Ashfoi'd, his assistant and under his direction, appeai'ed for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. I. Claimant's decedent, John Smith, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority for the use of the army, took from claimant's decedent, in Madison County, Tenn., property of the kind and character above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of sixteen hundred dollars (|1,600), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by the House of Repre- sentatives, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given therefor. By the Court. Filed April 22, 1907. A true copy. Test this 13th day of December, A. D. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cla-Jc Court of Claims. JOHN M. SPEED, HEIR OF WARREN F. SPEED, DECEASED. {Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11258. Estate of Warren F. Speed, deceased, v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the militaiy forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Wan'en F. Speed, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 319 whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed April 10, 1905. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11258. John M. Speed, heir at law of Warren F. Speed, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the militaiy forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War .Claims, House of Representatives, on the 12th day of January, 1904. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 10th day of April, 1905, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 18th day of January, 1906, C. A. and F. W. Brandenburg, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That claimant was a resident of Maury County, State of Tennessee, and was the owner and possessor of certain horses and mules, which in the fall of 1863 were seized and appropriated to the use of the military forces of the United States then stationed and operating in said locality according to the following bill of items: Two mules, at |150 each |300 One horse 150 Total 450 The court, upon the evidence and after the consideration of the briefs and the argu- ments of counsel for the respective parties, makes the following FINDINGS OF PACT. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Maury County , State of Tennessee, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of three hundred and ten dollars ($310), for which no payment appears to have been made. By THE Court. Filed January 29, 1906. A true copy. Test this 17th day of March, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph,' Assistant Clei^k Court of Claims. WILLIAM STONE, HEIR OF MARK STONE, DECEASED. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11260. Estate of Mark Stone, deceased, v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Mark Stone, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed January 23, 1905. [Com-t of Claims. Congressional case No. 11260. William Stone, heir of Mark Stone, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 320 AULiOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 12th clay of January, 1904. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 23d day of January, 1905, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 2d day of ]\Iay, 1905. Clarence A. Brandenburg, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attomey-General, by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant and under his diiection, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is the heir at law of Mark Stone, who resided during the war of the rebellion in Maury County, Tenn. ; that during said war United States military forces, by proper authority, for the use of the Ai-my, took from claimant's decedent one horse of the value of $285. Claim was disallowed by the Quartermaster-General because he was not convinced that the property was actually taken or received for the use of and used by the United States Army. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on l)oth sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT, There was taken from the claimant's decedent in Maury County, State of Ten- nessee, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property as above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of one hundred and ten dollars ($110). It does not appear that any payment has been made for any part thereof. By the Court. Filed May 15, 1905. A true copy. Test this 22d day of December, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. CLARISSA H. TIPTON, ADMINISTRATRIX. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10960. Isaac Tipton, deceased, v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquuy, finds that Isaac Tipton, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. :3^ By the Court. Filed January 11, 1904. [Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 10960. Clarissa H Tipton, administratix Isaac Tipton, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of tlie rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 3d day of Febru- ary, 1903. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 11th day of January, 1904, foimd that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States tlu'ough- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of October, 1906. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and Hon. J. A. Van Orsdel, Assistant Attorney-General, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 321 The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: That she is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administratrix of the estate of Isaac Tipton, deceased, late of Knox County, Tenn.; that during the late civil war said decedent resided in said county and State; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent and converted to the use of the United States Army commissary supplies of the kind and value below stated, to wit: 11 hogs, 1,375 pounds |137. 50 The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OP FACTS. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Knox County, State of Tennessee, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and char- acter above described, which was reasonably worth at the time and place of taking the sum of eighty-two dollars (|82), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy. Test this 1st day of December, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. GEORGE TODD. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 6776. George Todd v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the couit, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that George Todd, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed February 11, 1907. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 6776. George Todd v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores, alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 14th day of February, 1889. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 11th day of February, 1907, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 12th day of March, 1907. C. A. and F. W. Brandenburg, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General by M. A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That during the said war he was a resident of Maury County, State of Tennessee, and was the owner and possessor in said county and State of certain quartermaster stores and commissary supplies, which in the fall of 1864 were seized and appropriated to the use of the military forces of the United States then stationed and operating in said locality, according to the following bill of items: Two horses, at 1150 each , ; $300 H. Rep. 543, 60-1- ^21 322 AULOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. The coui't, upon the evidence and after the consideration of briefs and after hearing the arguments of the respective counsel, makes the following FINDING OF FACT. There were taken from the claimant in Maury County, State of Tennessee, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, horses as set forth in the petition, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of one hundred and ten dollars ($110). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed April 1, 1907. A true copy. Test this 12th day of December, A. D. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF WASHINGTON COLLEGE, WASHINGTON, TENN. [Court of Claims. Congressional No. 11176. Trustees of Washington College, of Washington College, Tenn., v. The United States.] statement of case. The following bill was referred to the court February 20, 1903, by resolution of the House of Representatives, under an act of Congress, approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of the Trustees of Washington College, in the State of Tennessee. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay to the trustees of Washington College, in the State of Ten- nessee, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of ten thousand dollars, for use of and injury to their buildings and contents by the Federal Army during the war of the rebellion." The trustees of Washington College, in the State of Tennessee, appeared and filed their petition in this court March 6, 1905, in which they make the following allegations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and in the fall of 1863, the military forces of the United States, under command of General Burnside, took possession of the grounds, buildings, and contents of Washington College, situated at Washington College, in the State of Tennessee, and used the same for militaiy pur- poses. That during said occupation the said buildings were badly damaged and the con- tents thereof were all removed and destroyed and the fence inclosing the said building were appropriated to the use of the Army. That the reasonable rental value of said buildings during the period it was so used and occupied, including the damages incident to such occupation and the voluntary destruction and use of the property belonging to the said college, was the sum of $10,000, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 19th day of Feb- ruary, 190G. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimant^, and the Attorney- General, by George H. Walker, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following findings op fact. I. It appears from the evidence that Washington College, of Tennessee, as a col- lege, was loyal to the Government of the United States tlu'oughout the war for the- suppression of the rnl)ollion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, liy proper authority, took possession of the college buildings and grounds of Washington College, situated at Washington College, State of Tennessee, and used and occupied the same for military purposes. The reasonable rental value ALLOWANCE OF CBETAIN CLAIMS. 323 of said buildings and grounds during the period of such occupancy, including repairs necessary to restore the property to the condition in which it was when the military forces took possession of the same, was the sum of four thousand two hundred dollars ($4,200), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. The claim was not presented to any officer or Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. By the Court. Filed March 12, 1906. ' A true copy. Test this 16th day of March, 1906. ^ [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, AT JEFFERSON CITY, TENN. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11268. Trustees of the First Baptist Church, at JeSerson City, Tenn., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 12th day of January, 1904. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 9th day of January, 1905, found that the church alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged, to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. . The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 5th day of January, 1905, G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George M. Ander- son, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: That during the late war of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the First Baptist Church, of Jefferson City, Tenn., and removed therefrom a lot of material, consisting of lumber, furniture, fixtures, etc., and appropriated the same to tlie use of the Army. That said material was taken in the fall and winter of 1863-64 by the following regiments of infantry. One hundred and eleventh and One hundred and eighteenth Ohio, Twenty- fifth Michigan, Thirteenth Kentucky, Eightieth Indiana, and Third and Sixth Tennessee. That the cost to restore the building to the same condition in which it was before taken possession of by the said troops was the sum of $925, for which no payment has been made. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, in the fall and winter of 1863-64, took and destroyed the church building belonging to the First Baptist Chm-ch, of Jefferson City, Tenn., which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of nine hundred and fifteen dollars ($915). By THE Court. Filed January 9, 1905. A true copy. Test this 12th day of January, 1905. [seal.] Archibald Hopkins, Chief Clerk. 324 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. % TRUSTEES OF CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, PULASKI, TENN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12199. Trustees of the Cumberland Presbvterian Church, of Pulaski, Tenn., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The following bill was referred to the court March 31, 1906, by resolution of the House of Representatives under act of Congress, approved ]\Iarch 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : "A BttLL For the relief of the trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Pulaski, Tennessee. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of th« Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Pulaski, Tennessee, the sum of one thousand and fifteen dollars, in full compensation for the use, occupation, and damage to said church by the military forces of the United States diiring the late war." The trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Pulaski, Tenn., appeared and filed their petition in this court September 14, 1906, in which they make the following allegations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about Novem- ber, 1863, the military forces of the United States, under command of Gen. G. M. Dodge, took possession of the chm'ch building of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, at Pulaski, Tenn., and used and occupied the same for military purpose until the summer of 1864; that thereafter, and on or about December, 1864, the said military forces, by proper authority, again took possession of said building and used and occu- pied the same until the summer of 1865. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occu- pied, including the repaii's necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of $2,500, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 5th day of Feb- ruary, 1907. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Pulaski, Tenn., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the building described in the petition in about November, 1863, and used the same for military purposes until the summer of 1864. Such use and occupation, together with the damages to said building in excess of the ordinary wear and tear, was reasonably worth the sum of seven hundred dollars ($700.00), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why such was not done. By the Court. Filed February 11, 1907. A true copy. Test this 22d day of February, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 325 TRUSTEES OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OF TRIUNE, TENN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12193. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Triune, Tenn., v. The United States,] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court March 31, 1906, by resolution of the House of Representatives under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Triune, Wjlliam- son County, Tennessee. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Amer - ica in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby,' authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- priated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, at Triune, William- son County, Tennessee, the sum of six thousand dollars, inpayment and satisfaction for the use and occupation of and damage done to said chui'ch and for the material taken and used by the Federal forces during th3 late ci-\dl war." The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Triune, Tenn., appeared and filed their petition in this court April 28, 1906, in which they make the following allegations: That dming the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the fall of 1863, the military forces of the United States under command of General Stead- man took possession of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, at Triune, Williamson County. Tenn., and removed the said building, appropriating the material therein to the use of the Army in building winter quarters and for various other purposes. That said building was constructed of brick, being two stories high and about 40 by 60 feet, furnished with the usual and necessary church furniture, and was reason- ably worth at the time of its removal as aforesaid the sum of $6,000. no part of which has ever been paid. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 30th day of January, 1907. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF PACT. I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Triune, Williamson Coimty, Tenn., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During the late civil war the military forces of the United States, by proper ' authority, took possession of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Triune, Williamson County, Tenn., Whilst the said military forces of the United States under command of General Steadman, were camped around the premises the said church building was destroyed by fii'e, but whether by accident or design and for what purpose does not appear. After the destruction of the property by fibre, as aforesaid, the bricks and rocks which had been used in the construction of the church building were appropriated to the use of the military forces of the United States. The said building at the time of its destruction was reasonably worth the sum of thirty-eight hundred dollars ($3,800), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Government until its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate under the act of March 3, 1887, as aforesaid; nor is any evidence offered to show why the claim was not heretofore presented to some department of the Government. By THE Court. Filed February 4, 1907. A true copy. Test this 9th day of February, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 326 AULOWANOE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. . ST. PETER'S PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, COLUMBIA, TENN. [Court of Claims. Term 1906 and 1907. Congressional, No. 12197. Rector, wardens, and vestry of the St. Peter's Protestant Episcopal Church of Columbia, Term., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. ■ The following bill was referred to this court by a resolution of the House of Rep- resentatives under the provisions of section 14 of the act of March 3, 1887: "A BILL For the relief of the vestry of Saint Peter's Protestant Episcopal Church of Columhia, Tennessee. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assevihled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- ated, to the vestry of the Saint Peter's Protestant Episcopal Church of Columbia, Ten- nessee, the sum of five thousand dollars, in payment for the use and occupation and damages done to the church' building while used by the Federal forces from June, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, to November, eighteen hundred and sixty-four." The claimants in their amended petition make'the following allegations: That the said church is an ecclesiastical corporation of the State of Tennessee, and that during the civil war the said church as such did not give any aid or comfort to the said rebellion, but was throughout that war loyal to the Government of the United States. That in December, 1863, the said St. Peter's Protestant Episcopal Clnu-ch, in the city of Columbia, State of Tennessee, was closed by military order, and that from July 1, 1862, to May 31, 1865, was constantly occupied by United States troops belong- ing to Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana regiments (except during brief stay of General Hood's army in December. 1864) as a hospital and barracks, and that while so occu- pied sustained considerable damage, to wit, the pews and seats in being removed were greatly damaged and many of them destroyed; the pulpit, organ, interior fittings, window shutters and sash, etc., were all destroyed, and 1,200 feet of dressed plank stored in the church was taken and used by the troops for hospital purposes. That shortly after the troops had vacated, the Iniilding was rebuilt by the parish and used as a place of worship. That said edifice and interior fittings were reasonably worth the sum of $3, 750 Use and occupation of church bv troops from Julv 1, 1862, to Maj 31, 1865. . . 2, 625 1,200 feet of dressed plank *. '. 30 Total 6, 405 That a claim for this damage, and use and occupation to said church edifice was presented to the quartermaster, United States Army, but was not allowed. That the said claim has been presented to the Fifty-ninth Congress, and was by resolution No. 249 of the House of Representatives of the said Fifty-ninth Congress, first session, on the 6th day of April, 1906, referred to this court for a finding of the facts, in accordance with the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, entitled "An act to provide for the bringing of suits against the Government of the United States." That no action other than aforesaid has been had on this claim in Congress or any of the Departments; that the claimant is the sole owner of this claim and the only person interested therein; that no assignment or transfer of this claim or any part thereof or interest therein has been made; that the claimant is justlv entitled to the amount herein claimed from the United States, after allowing all just credits and offsets; that your petitioners believe the facts as stated in this petition to be true, and pray a finding of the facts in accordance with the aforesaid act. The case was lirought to a h<>aring on the 23d day of January, 1907. George A. and \Villiam B. King appeared for the claimant, and J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., Assistant Attorney-General, by W. H. Lamar, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared fur the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering tlie l)riefs and argument of counsel on lioth sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The St. Peter's Protestant Episcopal Church of Columbia, Tenn.. as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the sup- pression of the rebellion. AXiIiOWANCE OF CESTAIN CLAIMS. 327 II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church property belonging to the St. Peter's Protestant Episcopal Church of Columbia, Tenn., and used the same at various times from July 1, 1862, until May 31, 1865, as a hospital and for barracks, and damaged the same. Such use and occupation, together with the damages to the property in excess of the ordinary wear and tear, was then and there reasonably worth the sum of thirty-one hundred and twenty dollars (|3,120), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any department of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the House of Representatives as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given for not so presenting the same. By the Court. Filed January 28, 1907. A true copy. Test this 30th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims.- TEXAS. ROBERT E. WILLIAMS AND OTHER HEIRS OF ROBERT M. WILLIAMS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12189. Robert E. Williams, Jolm T. Williams, Mary F. Williams, George M. Williams, and Ida Williams-Eddy, heirs of the estate of Rooert M. Williams, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. This is a claim for property alleged to have been taken by the military forces of the United States for the use of the Army. The following bill was referred to the court by the House of Representatives, March 31, 1906, under the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: '•■ [H. R. 4235, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] " A BILL For the relief of the estate of Robert M. Williams, deceased. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay to the estate of Robert M. Williams, deceased, the sum of two thousand one hundred and seventy-five dollars for property taken by the Union Arniy in eighteen hundred and sixty-two, in Cooper County, Missouri, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise apj)ropriated." The claimants, Robert E. Williams, John T. Williams, Mary Frances Williams, and George M. Williams, and Mrs. Ida Williams-Eddy, only surviving heirs, appeared and filed their petition herein, June 26, 1906, in which they make 1 he following allegations: That decedent was always a loyal citizen of the United States, and lived diuing the civil war in Cooper County, Mo. That in the year 1862 a cavalry troop of General Fremont's command, under charge of a lieutenant not known to claimants, came through that part of the country and took from decedent — 2 wagons, at $100 each 1200 2 large mules, at $200 each 400 8 fine mares, at $200 each 600 2 sets of harness, at $25 a set 50 1 fine double-barrel shotgun - 75 and later the State militia took the balance of the stock — 3 head of horses, at $150 each 450 300 bushels of corn, at $1 a bushel 300 Total 2,175 for which no compensation has ever been received, either by decedent or any party in interest. That the decedent died in 1875, in Dallas, Tex., intestate, and no administrator was appointed for his estate. Your petitioners did not know until recently of the passage of the Tucker Act, when they presented this claim in the Fifty-ninth Congress, first session. 328 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The case was brought to a hearing on January 6, 1908. Ellen Spencer Mussey ap- peared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General by Clark McKercher, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the arguments and briefs of counsel on each side, makes the following FINDING OF TACT. I. It appears from the evidence that Robert M. Williams, claimants' decedent, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from claimants' decedent in Cooper County, Mo. , property of the kind and character described in the petition, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of one thousand one hundred and forty dollars, no part of Avhih appears to have peen paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States House of Representatives as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimants for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. Filed January 13, 1908. A true copy. Test this 17th day of January, A. D. 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. VERMONT. HENRIETTA V. DALE. Court of Claims. Congressional, No .12169-44. Henrietta V. Dale, widow nf John J. Dale, deceased. V. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the coiut by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 27th day of March, 1906. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 20th day of January, 1908. C. D. Pennebaker, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by G. M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 1. That she is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Windham, in the State of Vermont, and is the widow of John J. Dale, deceased. 2. That said John J. Dale being the sergeant of Comjiany F, Seventeenth Regiment Vermont Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Vermont as second lieutenant thereof on March 11, 1865; and that from and after said date tlie said John J. Dale assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until May 1, 1865, when he was mustered in as first lieutenant; said regi- ment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed bj' law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, said John J. Dale was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period the said John J. Dale was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments, and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel, the court makes thef olio wing FINDINGS OF PACT. 1. Henrietta V. Dale, the claimant of this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident of the county of Windham, in the State of Vermont. 2. On March 11, 1865, John J. Dale was sergeant of Company F, Seventeenth Regi- ment Vermont Vohmteer Infantry. On that date and ujitil he was mustered into the service, to wit, on May 1, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the mini- mum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the War Department, of June AliLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 329 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L.,p. 734). The second lieutenant of said Company F, Seventeenth Regiment Vermont Volun- teer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon said John J. Dale, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company F, Seventeenth Regiment Vermont Volunteer Infantry. The governor of the State of Vermont also issued to said John J. Dale a commission as second lieutenant. Company F, Seventeenth Regiment Vermont Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said March 11, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster the said John J. Dale as second lieutenant of said Company F, Seventeenth Regiment Vermont Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as first lieutenant May 1, 1865. 4. If the said John J. Dale should be deemed second lieutenant of Company F, Seventeenth Regiment Vermont Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered from the period from March 11, 1865, to April 30, 1865, would amount to one hundred and twenty-four dollars and six cents (1124.06), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. By the Court. Filed January 20, 1908. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 20th day of January, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. VIRGINIA. FRANCIS M. BRABHAM. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10599. Francis M. Brabham v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Francis M. Brabham, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken , was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed May 15, 1905. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10599. Francis M. Brabham v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of March, 1902. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 15th day of May, 1905, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of November, 1905. Moyers & Consaul, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by E. C. Brandenburg, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States, now residing in the county of Montgomery, Sta,te of Maryland; that during the late civil war he was a citizen of the United States, residing in the county of Loudoun, State of Virginia; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from petitioner and converted to the use of the United States army quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 1 steer |25. 00 4 fine horses at $155 each 620. 00 Total 645. 00 330 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. There was taken from the claimant, in Loudoun County, State of Virginia, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of five hundred dollars (|500), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed December 4, 1905. A true copy. Test this 12th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claivis. SOLOMON P. BROCKWAY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-6. Solomon P. Brockway v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of April, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Augusta, in the State of Virginia. 2. That he, being major Ninth Regiment Michigan Volunteer Cavalry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Michigan as lieutenant- colonel thereof on June 27, 1865; and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until August 9,. 1865, when he was mustered out as major; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of lieutenant-colonel during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a major, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of lieutenant- colonel. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. 1. Solomon P. Brockway, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Augusta, in the State of Virginia. 2. On June 27, 1865, the said Solomon P. Brockway was major Ninth Regiment Michigan Volunteer Cavalry. On that date and until he was mustered out of service, to wit, on August 9, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the minimum num- ber prescribed by General Orders, No. 182, of the Wai- Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). The lieutenant-colonel of said Ninth Regiment Michigan Volunteer Cavalry was promoted colonel June 27, 1865, vice Acker, resigned June 27, 1865. and the duties of lieutenant-colonel devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of lieutenant-colonel of said Ninth Regiment Michigan Volunteer Cavalry until August 9, 1865. The governor of tlie State of Micliigan also issued to this claimanl a commission as lieutenant-colonel Ninth Regiment Michigan Volunteer Cavalry. 3. On the said June 27, 18()5, th(> mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as lieutenant-colonel of said Ninth Regiment Micliigan Volunteer Cavalry solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of lieutenant-colonel until he was mus- tered out of the service as major August 9, 1865. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 331 4. If the said Solomon P. Brockway should be deemed lieutenant-colonel Ninth Regiment Michigan Volunteer Cavalry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the differ- ence between his pay and allowances as a major, which he has received, and that of a lieutenant-colonel, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from June 27, 1865, to August 9, 1865, would amount to $92.64 (ninety-two dollars and sixty-four cents), as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. By the Court. Filed April 1, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 2d day of April, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. FRANCIS F. CURTIS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8440. Francis F. Curtis v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Francis F. Curtis, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed November 13, 1905. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8440. Francis F. Curtis v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 2d day of March, 1891. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 13th day of November, 1905, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 30th day of January, 1907. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by F. DeC. Faust, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro-' taction of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Fauquier, State of Virginia; that during the early portion of the late civil war he resided in said county and State, but in 1863 moved to the State of Ohio, where he resided during the remainder of said war; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from petitioner for use of the United States Army, quar- termaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to- wit: Taken from farm of petitioner, near Warrenton, Fauquier County, by troops under command of General Wilcox, November 8, 1862: 150 bushels of corn, at 60 cents per bushel $90. 00 Taken, August, 1863, by E. M. Tilley, captain and assistant quartermaster: 175 bushels corn, at 80 cents per bushel 140. 00 600 bushels corn, at 60 cents per bushel 360. 00 26 sheep, at $4 each 104. 00 200 bushels of oats, at 50 cents per bushel 100. 00 40 bushels of potatoes, at |1 per bushel 40. 00 1 roan horse 150. 00 2 sets of harness, at $25 a set 50. 00 150 bushels of wheat, at $1.50 per bushel 225. 00 1,000 pounds of bacon, at 16f cents per pound 166. 66 4 calves, at $8 each 32. 00 8,000 feet new lumber, at $20 per M 160. 00 4 barrels of flour, at $10 per barrel 40. 00 1 wheelbarrow 5. 00 Total 1, 627. 66 332 AULiOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. During the late civil war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from claimant, in Fauquier County, Va., for use of the Army, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds mentioned in the j)etition, which, at the time and place of taking, were reasonably worth the sum of six hundred and three dollars and seventy-five cents ($603.75). No payment appears to have been made for said property or any part thereof. By the Court. Filed February 4, 1907. A true copy. Test this 8th day of February, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MARGARET M. DONNELLY, WIDOW OF EDWARD W. DONNELLY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, 'Nro. 10555. Estate of Edward W. Donnelly, deceased, v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the com-t, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Edward W. Donnelly, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. FUed May 25, 1903. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10555. Margaret M. Donnelly, widow of Edward W, Donnelly, deceased, v. The United States.] statement op case. The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for theii' use dur- ing the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the comt by the Committee on War Claims on the 1st day of April, 1902. On a preliminary inquiry the c;ourt, on the 25th day of May, 1903, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the LTnited States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 9th day of December, 1907. George A. and William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: The claimant appeared in this court and filed her petition September 9, 1902, in which it is substantially averred that: The following propertj' belonging to Edward W. Donnelly was taken from him by the United States Army, the date, place, and command being particularly stated below : In Fauquier County, in the State of Vii'ginia, on or about the years 1862 and 1864, by the United States troops — 1 horse taken in the spring of 1862 by General Gregg's command $175 1 horse taken by Colonel De Forest in 1864 175 37 sheep, at $5 each, taken by reserve artillery in 1864 185 2 hogs taken by United States troops in spring of 1864 30 Chickens, turkeys, and other fowls taken at different times 80 Products of garden for three years 300 945 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 333 That a claim for said property was presented to the Fifty-fifth and Fifty-sixth Congresses, the items of said claim being as heretofore stated. Said claim was not allowed by said tribunal, the ground for said action being that it was not considered that the claimant was a citizen of the United States. The claim has been presented to the Fifty-fifth and Fifty-sixth Congresses and was by the resoultion of the House of the said Fifty-sixth Congress referred to the Com- mittee on War Claims of the said House, by which committee it was on the 1st day of April, 1902, referred to this court for a finding of facts in accordance with section 1 of an act approved March 3, 1883, entitled "An act to afford assistance and relief to Congress and the Executive Departments in the investigntion of claims and demands against the Government." The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OP FACT. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from claimant's decedent, in Fauquier County, State of Virginia, property of the kind and character described in the petition, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of three hun- dred and sixty dollars (?360). No payment appears to have been made for any part thereof. By the Court. Filed December 9, 1907. A true copy. Test this 16th day of December, 1907. ^ [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. HEZEKIAH T. EMBREY, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10603. Estate of Robert Embrey, deceased, v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Robert Embrey, deceased, the person alleged to" have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed April 4, 1904. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10603. Hezekiah T. Embrey, administrator of Robert Embrey, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 14th day of May, 1902. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 4th day of April, 1904, found that the person alleged to have fiirnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 5th day of December, 1904. William R. Andrews, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant >n his petition makes the following allegations: That he is the administrator of the estate of Robert Embrey, deceased, who resided in Fauquier County, State of Virginia, during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion; that during said period the military forces of the United States, under the 334 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. command of General Geary and others, for the use of the Army, took from his decedent property as follows: 2 horses, at $125 each $250. 00 250 bushels corn, at 65 cents 162. 50 80 bushels of oats, at 40 cents 32. 00 10 tons of hay, at $15 150. 00 4 tons of straw, at $7.50 30. 00 2 tons of fodder, at $7.50 15. 00 40 sheep, at $3 120. 00 5 cattle, 700 pounds each, at 4 cents 140. 00 12 large hogs, 200 pounds each, at 6 cents 144. 00 12 small hogs, 80 pounds each, at 6 cents 57. 60 75 bushels of wheat, at $1.25 93. 75 50 bushels of rye, at 80 cents 40. 00 Total ' 1, 234. 85 The com"t, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING or FACT. There was taken fi'om the claimant's decedent in Fauquier County, State of Vir- ginia, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for their use, property as above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of eight hundred and twenty-six dollars ($826). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed December 12, 1904. A true copy. Test this 6th day of January, 1905. [seal.] John Randolj^h, Assistaiif Clerk Court of Claims, NOAH FOLTZ. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8622. Noah Foltz v. The United States.] This case l^eing a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken l)y or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Noah Foltz, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. This finding is subject to the question of identity of claimant with Noah Foltz mentioned in the defendants' brief, to be considered in the trial on merits. By the Court. Filed June 11, 1894. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 8li22. Noah Foltz v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case ffir supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished 1o the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the c6urt by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 26th day of Febru- ary, 1892. On a jirelirninary inquiry the court, on the 11th day of June, 1894, found that the person alleged to have furnislied the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been takcu, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on ils merits on the J 2th day of December, 1904. G. A. and W. B. King, esqs., appeared lor claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Charles Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the de- fense and protection of the interests of the United States. AULOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS, 335 The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States; that he resided diiring the late war in the State of Viiginia; that the following property belonging to him was taken from him by the United States Army and used by said Army: In Page County, State of Virginia, on or about April, 1862, by the forces of the United States, namely, General Banks's command, to wit: 1 young stallion • $300 1 bay mare 150 Total 450 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF PACT. There was taken from the claimant in the county of Page, State of Virginia, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of three hundred dollars (|300). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed December 19, 1904. Test this 19th day of December, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims, JOHN C. LUTHOLTZ. [Court of ClaimB. Congressional, No. 8922. Mary Lutholte v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur^ nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Mary Lutholtz, the person alleged to have fmnished such supplies or stores or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed January 9, 1905. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8922. John C. Lutholtz, sole heir of Mary Lutholtz, deceased, V. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 31st day of IMarch, 1892. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 9th day of January, 1905, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 18th day of December, 1905. IVIoyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George M.. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Shenan- doah, State of Virginia; that petitioner is grandson and sole heir and representative of ]\lary Lutholtz, deceased; that during the late civil war said Mary Lutholtz was a citizen of the United States, residing in Shenandoah County, Va. ; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent 336 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. and converted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and com- missary supplies of kinds and values below stated, to wit: 1 fine saddle mare $150. 00 1 good two-horse farm wagon 100. 00 6 sheep, at |3 each 18. 00 14 acres of corn, 180 bushels 144. 00 2 tons hay, at |15 per ton 30. 00 3 fat hogs, 450 pounds net 30. 00 60 cords wood, at $1 per cord 60. 00 Total 532. 00 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took from the claimant's decedent property of the kind and character above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of three hundred and fifty-nine dollars ($359). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. ' Filed January 8, 1906. A true copy. Test this 24th day of January, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MARGARET A. PROCTOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9413. Estate of Samuel K. Proctor, deceased, v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Samuel K. Proctor, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed December 11, 1905. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9413. Margaret A. Proctor, administratrix of Samuel K. Proctor, deceased, v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for theii- use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Clainis of the House of Representatives on the 19th day of May, 1908. On a preliminary inquiiy the court, on the 11th day of December, 1905, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States thi-ough- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- tion of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: That she is the widow of Samuel K. Proctor, deceased, and resides in Baltimore, Md. ; that during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion she resided with her hus- band, the said Samuel K. Proctor, in Fauquier County, Va.; that there was taken from her said husband in said countv and State bv the military forces of the United States, ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 337 by proper authority, duiing the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and appropriated to the use of the Army, property of the kind and value, as follows: 4 young horses, at $150 $600 1 young mule 150 I cow 35 II head of hogs, at |20 220 8 shoats, at $5 40 50 head of fowls 25 (Taken about October, 1862, by General Sigel's command.) 200 pounds of bacon, at 25 cents 50 Potatoes, etc 100 150 barrels of corn, at $5 750 Fodder 50 (Taken in the fall of 1863 by General Kilpatrick's command.) 2,020 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OF FACT. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, Samuel K. Proctor, in the county of Fauquier, State of Virginia, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reason- ably worth the sum of five hundred and twenty dollars ($520), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed January 7, 1907. A true copy. Test this 9th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ELEANOR McWILLIAMS, ADMINISTRATRIX. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 4370. Henry McWilliams v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Henry McWilliams, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed October 23, 1893. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 4370. Eleanor McWilliams, administratrix of Henry McWilliams, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 1st day of May, 1888. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 23d day of October, 1893, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 19th day of December, 1904. George A. and William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- eral, by George H. Walker, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. H. Rep. 543, 60-1 22 338 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. The claimant, in her petition, makes the following allegations: That she is the administratrix of Henry McWilliams, deceased, her warrant of authority being herewith brought into court. That said decedent was during the civil war a resident of the State of Virginia and did not give any aid or comfort to the said rebellion, but was throughout that war loyal to the Government of the United States. That the following property belonging to claimant's decedent was taken from him by the United States Army and used by the said Army, the date, place, and command being particularly stated below: In Fairfax County, State of Virginia, on or about the 2d day of June to December, 1862, by the forces of the United States, namely, General George's division, consisting of the Fifth Regiment of New York Cavalry and the Fifth Regiment of Massachusetts Cavalry Volunteers, to wit: 1 bay horse, valued at $300. 00 1 roan horse, valued at 150. 00 1 blooded bay, valued at 175. 00 1 blooded bay horse, valued at 175. 00 1 gray horse, valued at 175. 00 Total 925. 00 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following- FINDING OF FACTS. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in the comity of Fairfax, State of Virginia, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, j^roperty of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of five hundred and seventj^-iive dollars ($575), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed December 22, 1904. A true copy. Test this 16th day of January, 1905. [seal.] ARcifiBALD HoPKiNS, Chief Clerh. ELIJAH P. MYERS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 1356. Elijah P. Myers v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use din-ing the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Elijah P. Myers, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed May 25, 1903. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 1356. Elijah P. Myers v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the aljove-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to lia^e been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 28th day of Feb- ruary, 1887. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 25th day of May, 1903, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom lliey were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of Januaiy, 1905. Ct. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of tlie interests of the United States. ALLOWANCE Or CERTAIN CLAIMS. 339 The claimant, in his petition, makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the county of Loudoun, State of Vii'ginia, and has a claim against the United States for stores and supplies taken by or furnished to the Army of the United States for army use, at or near Leesburg, Loudoun County, Va., at the times hereinafter stated, and by the officers named, said property being reasonably worth at the time and place the value here given, that is to say: February 9, 1862, Fifth Michigan Cavalry: 2 horses, at |200 and |175 $375 1 set of blacksmiths' tools 50 January 12, 1863, Twelfth Pennsylvania Cavalry: 1 horse 150 400 pounds of bacon, at 20 cents 80 450 pounds of beef, at 12 cents 54 205 bushels of corn, at $1 205 35 cords of wood, at $4 140 July 20, 1864, Twelfth Army Corps: 120 pounds of bacon, at 20 cents .' 24 2 horses, at $200 400 42 tons of hay, at $20 840 Total 2. 318 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. There was taken from the claimant, in the county of Loudoun, State of Virginia, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of one thousand one hundred and ninety dollars ($1,190), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed January 16, 1905. A true copy. Test this 20th day of January, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOHN B. MYERS, ADMINISTRATOR OF ALEXANDER MYERS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, Nos. 12206 and 12211 consolidated. John B. Myers, administrator of estate of Alexander Myers, deceased, v. The United States.] statement of case. This is a claim for property alleged to have been taken from claimant's decedent by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war. April 6, 1906, the House of Representatives, by resolution, referred to the com't under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act, a bill as follows: "H. R. 3478, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] ,,A BILL For the relief of the personal representative of the estate of Alexander Myers, deceased. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay to the personal representatives of the estate of Alexander Myers, late of Henrico County, Virginia, the sum of six thousand dollars, in full com- pensation for crops, building material, wood, horses, mules, cattle, hogs, poultry, farming implements, and other property and quartermaster stores and supplies taken and used by the Army of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court May 18, 1906, in which he makes substantially, the following allegations: That he is the duly appointed and qualified administrator of the estate of Alexander Myers, deceased, late of the city of Richmond, Va. ; that his decedent was loyal to the 340 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. Government of the United States tlii'ougliout the late civil war; that dui'ing said period his decedent was taken prisoner by the Confederate authorities and confined in prison at Salisbury, N. C. That at the time he was so taken prisoner he was the owner of a farm in Charles City County, Va., consisting of 560 acres of land, 200 acres of which were under cultivation and the remaining 360 acres contained a lot of fine timber of various kinds, as well as a gi'eat quantity of cord wood; that there were also a good dwelling and other houses on the place; that upon his return from prison he found his property in the possession of the military forces of the United States under the coramand of General McClellan, and that nothing was left of said property but the land; that the property so taken and the damage done to the residence have been placed by competent judges at the sum of $6,500, and that such amount is justly due from the United States. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 13th day of March, 1907. John Goode, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by M. A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interest of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following riNDINGS OF FACT. I. The claimant's decedent, Alexander Myers, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. Dm-ing said period the military forces of the United States, operating under General McClellan, took possession of the farm in Charles City County, Va., belonging to claimant's decedent and occupied and damaged the same. Such use and occupa- tion and damage in excess of ordinary wear and tear, together with the taking of the stores and supplies thereon, were then and there reasonably worth the sum of two thousand six hundred and eighty-two dollars ($2,682), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by the House of Repre- sentatives under the act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given for not so presenting the same. IV. In the claim of John B. Myers, administrator of the estate of Margaret Myers, deceased (being the same claimant as administrator of the wife of said decedent), the evidence fails to prove the said claim other than as herein set forth. By the Court. A true copy. Attest this 19th day of November, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOHN W. KELLAR, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Chums. Congressional, No. 9320. Estate of Eliza Dickenson Rlcketts v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Eliza Dickenson Ricketts, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Govern- ment of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed December 5, 1904. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9320. John W. Kellar, administrator of the estate of Eliza J. Ricketts, deceased, v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-ontitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for \ho suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the House of Representatives on the 14th day of February, 1906. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 5th day of December, 1906, found that the person alleged to have furnished tlie supplies or stores, or from whom they were ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 341 alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 14th day of January, 1907. Harry F. Lerch, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. The claimant, in the petition, makes the following allegations: That the claimant was a citizen of the United States, residing in Abingdon, State of Virginia, where she resided during the late war of the rebellion, and did not give any aid or comfort to the rebellion, but was throughout the said war loyal to the Govern- ment of the United States. That in or about December, 1864, the United States forces, under command of Gen- erals Stoneman, Gillam, and Burbridge, took from the decedent, in Washington County, Va., quartermaster's stores and commissary supplies of the value of $1,000 and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows: 1 gray horse, 7 years old $200. 00 1 bay horse, 5 years old 200. 00^ 1 bay horse, 4 years old 150. OO' 1 bay mare, 8 years old 150. 00 1 gray mare, 8 years old 150. 00 1 sorrel horse 150. 00 1, 000. 00 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. | During the late civil war the military forces of the United States, by proper author- ity, for military purposes, took property from the claimant's decedent, in Washington County, Va., of the kind described in the petition, which was then and there worth the sum of six hundred and forty -five dollars ($645), no part of which appears to have been paid. By the Court. Filed January 21, 1907. A true copy. Test this 29th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SALLIE R. TAYLOR AND OTHERS. [Court of Claims.'^ Congressional, (No. 9914. Sallie fR. Taylor, Mary S. Armistead, Anna Gee, and Sue P. Temple, sole heirs of Theodorick Bland, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The following bill was referred to the court February 15, 1899, by resolution of the House of Representatives under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: ■■Mi"^ BILL for the relief of the legal heirs of Doctor Theodorick Bland. ' 'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, directed to pay to the legal heirs of Doctor Theodorick Bland, of Virginia, the sum of six thou- sand dollars, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. "Sec. 2. That this act shall be in force from its passage." The claimants appeared and filed their petition in this court May 25, 1906, in which they make the following allegations: J That they are the sole heirs of Theodorick Bland, deceased, and reside in Prince George County, Va., where they resided during the late civil war; that diu-ing the late civil war, and on or about May, 1864, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of their farm situate at Jordans Point, Virginia, and used and occupied the same for military purposes until on or about September, 342 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 1865; that during said occupancy the said military forces appropriated to their use a quantity of timber and material from buildings, as follows: Item 1. 131,000 feet of lumber, at §20 per thousand $2, 620 Item 2. 8,314 cords of wood, at $1 per cord : 8, 314 item 3. Rent of farm from May, 1864, to September, 1865, at $2,000 per annum. 2, 666 Total 13, 600 The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 3d day of Decem- ber, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears that Theodoric Bland, the father of the claimants, died in 1859 or 1860, testate, leaving sm'viving him his wife, Mary Bland, and five children. By his last will and testament said Theodoric Bland devised all his property, real and per- sonal, to his wife, Mary Bland, and prior to the taking of tlae property herein claimed for, the said Mary Bland, to wit, in 1860 or 1861, departed this life intestate, leaving surviving as her sole heirs at law Theodoric Bland, jr., Sallie Russell Bland, Mary S. Bland, Anna Bland, and Sue P. Bland, who were the sole owners of the property at the time of the alleged taking. II. It does not appear that Theodoric Bland, jr., and Sallie Russell Bland were loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. It does appear that during said war Mary S. Bland, Anna Bland, and Sue P. Bland were loyal to the Government- of the United States, being of tender years. III. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion there was taken from the claimants by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property as above described, which was then and there worth the sum of $6,000. The proportionate shares of the above-named Mary S. Bland, Anna Bland, and Sue P. Bland would amount to the sum of tln-ee thousand six hundred dollars ($3,600.00). IV. Laches. — It does not appear that said claim was ever presented to any depart- ment or officer of the Government prior to its presentation to Congi-ess and reference to this com't as aforesaid, and no evidence is offered tending to excuse claimants for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. Filed December 10, 1906. A true copy. » Test this 4th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claivis. ROBERT AYATERS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 795S. Robert Waters v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the militarj' forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary iuquiiy, finds that Robert Waters, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of tlie United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed May 16, 1894. [('oiirt of Claims. Congressional cise No. 7958. Robert Waters v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in tlio above-entitled case for sujjplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late ALLOWANCE OF CERTAHsT CLAIMS. 343 war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 6th day of August, 1890. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 16th day of May, 1904, found that the per- son alleged to have fiirnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war,- The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 23d day of October, 1905. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is now and during the late civil war was residing at Dumfries, Va. ; that dur- ing said war the United States military forces, acting under proper authority, took from petitioner and converted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 3 cattle, at |25 each $75. 00 200 cords of standing wood, at $1 per cord 200. 00 6,750 rails 115. 00 2 tons of hay, at $20 per ton 40. 00 Grass from half an acre 10. 00 1 fine horse 150. 00 1,160 feet of lumber, used for winter quarters, at $15 per M 17. 40 20 rods stone fence, used for ovens and chimneys 20. 00 25 bushels of shelled corn, at $1 per bushel 25. 00 Total 642.40 FINDING OF FACT. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from claimant in Dumfries, Prince William County, Va., property as above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of five hundred and fifty-eight dollars ($558). No payment appears to have been made therefor. -' By the Court. Filed October 30, 1905. A true copy. Test this 6th day of December, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. W. C. GILL, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9938. W. C. Gill, administrator de bonis non of the estate of Edward 0. Watkins, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF THE CASE. The following bill was referred to the court February 6, 1899, by resolution of the House of Representatives under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of heirs of E. O. Watkins. "jBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America- in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed, to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- priated, to the heirs of Edward O. Watkins, deceased, late of Chesterfield County, Va., the sum of $40,000, for stores and supplies taken by the Federal forces for their^use during the late war of the rebellion." - t- - Ms-^i The claimants appeared and filed their petition in this court January 9,' 1905, in which they make the following allegations: — ---^ '■^• _ That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion Edward 0. Watkins resided at Bermuda Hundred, Chesterfield Coimty, Va. 344 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIiS' CLAIMS. That during said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took fi-om said Edward O. Watkins, in said county and State, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies and appropriated the same to the use of the Army as follows: Item 1. 173 acres of timber, 40 cords per acre, 6,920 cords of wood, at $1.50. . $10, 380 Item 2. Use and occupation of farm for ten months, at 812,000 per year 10, 000 Item 3. 1 sawmill and engine 2, 500 Item 4. 18,550 feet of fencing 920 Item. 5. Lumber fi'om 2 barns 1, 500 Item 6. 7 horses, at $150 1, 050 Item 7. 22 mules, at $100 2, 200 Item 8. 27,000 pounds of pork 350 Item 9. 52 sheep, at S5 260 Item 10. 55 cows, at $25 1, 375 Total 30, 535 (Taken in May, 1864, by General Butler's command.) The]^case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 1st day of February, 1906. 'G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. ^The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears fi'om the evidence that the claimants' decedent was loyal to the Gov- ernment of the United States throughout the war of the rebellion. II. .There was taken fi-om the claimants' decedent, in the county of Chesterfield, State of Virginia, diu'ing the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reasonal)ly worth the sum of four thousand nine hundred and twelve dollars ($4,912) for which no pajniient appears to have been -made. No allowance is made for use and occupation of farm, as claimed in item 2 of the petition. III. The evidence shows that the original claimant, Edward O. Watkins, died in the year 1865; that the first presentation of the claim was to Congi'ess in 1875; that some of the members of the family at the time were not of age and were ignorant of the mode of procedure in such cases. By the Court. Filed March 12, 1906. A true copy. Test this 1st day of December, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ADDIE L. BAILEY. [Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 9710. William G. AVebber v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use dming the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that William G. Webber, the person allege^ to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed April 7, 1902. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 9710. Addie L. Bailey, sole heir of William G. Webber, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the militarv forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of tfie rebellion was transmitted to the coiut by the ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 345. Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 23d day of April , 1898. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 7th day of April, 1902, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 16th day of March, 1904. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: That she is the sole heir of William G. AVebber, deceased, and is a citizen of the United States, residing in Baltimore, Md., and that her deceased father, William G. Webber, resided in Norfolk County, State of Virginia, during the late war of the rebellion; that at different times dming said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from her decedent quartermaster stores and commissaiy sup- plies of the value of $1,666.50 and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows: Lumber from two-story frame house and kitchen $931. 50 22,000 feet of fencing and 300 cedar posts 735. 00 Total 1, 666. 50 (Taken in May, 1864, by Twentieth New York Cavalry.) The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF PACT. There was taken from the estate of William G. Webber, in Norfolk County, State of Virginia, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of four hundred and fifty dollars ($450.00), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed March 20, 1905. A true copy. Test this 2d day of November, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. P. L. WILLIAMS, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9496. Estate of John S. Pendleton, deceased, v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that John S, Pendleton, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed December 1, 1902. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 9496. P. L. Williams, administrator de bonis non ciun [testamento annexo of John S. Pendleton, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 9th day of December. 1896. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 1st day of December, 1902, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 316 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States througli- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. G. "\V. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George M. Anderson, esc|., his assistant, and under his dhection, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations; That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Culpeper County, Va., where his decedent resided during the late civil war. That diuing the late war for the sup- pression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took from his decedent in Culpeper County, Va., and appropriated to the use of the United States Army property of the kind and value as follows: 110 acres of timber, 5,500 cords of wood, at $4 ". S22, 000. 00 100 acres of timber, 1,000 cords of wood, at §4 4, 000. 00 41,600 rails, at §75 per M 120. 00 903 yards of plank fence 162. 54 1,034 yards of plank fence 116. 31 Posts for above fence and construction 538. 50 Bam. com house, etc. , on Bowers farm 500. 00 Carpenter shop, tools, and appiirtenances 250. 00 Damages to harness 200. 00 Plantation wagon, thrashing machine, drill 425. 00 Overseer's house with outhouses 750. 00 Stables, bam. carriage shed, tool house, etc 600. 00 Injuries about house and garden 100. 00 Tool house, and other buildings 50. 00 Wagon wheel, and gears for 10 horses - 120. 00 8 new gates, posts, latches, and lumber 210. 00 Entire crop of 1863 — com, sorghum, and peas 1, 275. 00 Agricultural implements, etc 300. 00 Total 34, 717. 35 (Taken from September, 1863, to March 15, 1864, by General Newton's command.) The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion there was taken, by the military forces of the United States under proper authority, for the use of the Army, property as above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of six thousand one hundred and twenty dollars (.?6,120). It does not appear that any payment has been made for any part thereof. By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy. Test this 5th day of December, 1906. [sE.\L.] John Randolph, Assistant Clei'k Court of Claims. SAMUEL A. WINE, EXECUTOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No.82ti9. Estate of Michael Wine, deceased, v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppret?sion of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquu-y, finds that Michael A\'ine, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed December 1. 1902. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 347 [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. S269. Samuel A. Wine, executor of Michael Wine, jr., deceased, V. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their- use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on War Claims of the House of Eepresentatives on the 2d day of March, 1891. On a preliminary inquiry the com-t, on the 1st day of December, 1902, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 19th day of November, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : That he is the executor of the last will and testament of Michael Wine, jr. , deceased, and resides in Shenandoah County, State of Virginia, where his decedent resided during the late civil war. That during said war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took from his decedent, in said county and State, and appropriated to the use of the Army, stores and supplies of the quantity and value as follows : By General Banks's command : Item 1. Iblackhorse $120.00 By General Fremont's command: 2. 1 sorrel mare 140. 00 3. 1 iron-gray mare 100. 00 4. 1 bay mare 25. 00 5. 4 head of cattle 200. 00 By General Hunter's command: 6. 300 pounds of bacon 60. 00 7. 50 bushels of corn 37. 50 8. 1 wagon and gears 35. 00 9. 4 saddles _. . 76. 00 By General Sheridan's command: 10. 1 iron-gray mare 150. 00 11. 1 black horse 150 00 12. 2 heifers • 80 00 Total 1, 273. 50 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Dm-ing the war for the suppression of the rebellion there was taken from the claim- ant's decedent, Michael Wine, jr., in Shenandoah County, Va., by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property as above described which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars ($750.00). It does not appear that payment has been made for any part thereof. By the Court. Filed December 3, 1906. A true copy. Test this 16th day of February, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 348 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. TRUSTEES OF FOUR MILE CREEK BAPTIST CHURCH. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12207. Trustees Four Mile Creek Baptist Church v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The following bill was referred to the court on the 31st day of iSIarch, 1906, by resolu- tion of the House of Representatives under the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of trustees of Four Mile Creek Baptist Church. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized to pay to the trustees of Four Mile Creek Baptist Church, in Henrico County, Virginia, the sum of one thousand two hundred dollars, for loss sustained by the depredations of the United States Army during the war between the States." The claimants appeared and filed their petition in this court April 23, 1906, in which they make the following allegations: That Charles L. McCaull, R. E. Garnett, and A. N. Pearce have been appointed trustees of Four Mile Creek Baptist Church, of Henrico County, Va. ; that during the civil war in the autumn of 1864 the church was pulled down by soldiers of the Federal Army and the material thereof was placed in wagons, taken away, and appropriated to the use of the said Army; said church was located near the New Market road, about 10 miles^below the city of Richmond, and could not have been replaced for less than $1,000 or $2,000; that during said war the said trustees, as such, gave no aid, counsel, or encouragement in support of the Southern cause. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 3d day of December, 1906. John Goode, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by M. A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- tion of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP PACT. I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the Four Mile Creek Baptist Church, as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States. II. During the said war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of the building belonging to the Four Mile Creek Baptist Church and destroyed the same. The said building was then and there reasonably worth the sum of eight hundred dollars, no part of which appears to have been paid. III. It does not appear that said claim was ever presented to any department or officer of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. By the Court. Filed December 10, 1906. A true copy. Test this 14th day of December, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims, TRUSTEES OF THE WESTOVER CHURCH. {Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12205. Trustees of Westover Church v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The following bill was referred to the court on the 31st day of March, 1906, by resolution of the House of Representatives under the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: A BILL For the relief of certain churches in the State of Virginia. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Avrerica in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 349 ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to claimants in this act named, the several sums appropriated herein, the same being in full for and the receipt of the same to be taken and accepted in each case as a full and final release and discharge of their respective claims for use, occupation, and damage to their buildings by the United States military authorities during the civil war, namely: ****** * To the Westover Church, Charles County, Vu'ginia, one thousand dollars. ******* The claimants appeared and filed their petition in this court April 26, 1906, in which they make the following allegations: That D. G. Tyler, John A. Ruffin, and E. C. Harrison have been duly appointed trustees of Westover Church, in Charles City County, Va., which was pulled down and destroyed by a portion of the United States Army operating in Charles City County, Va., and the material composing the same was taken and appropriated to the use of the said Army; that during said war the said trustees as such gave no aid, counsel, or encouragement to the southern cause; that the bill for the relief places the amount of damages and taking of material at $1,000. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 3d day of Decem- ber, 1906. John Goode, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by M. A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his du*ection, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. " I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the Westover Church was loyal to the Government of the United States as a church. II. During the said war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of the church building belonging to the West- over Church and occupied same for about one month in 1862 and damaged same by tearing out the floors, pews, and other woodwork. The reasonable rental value, together with repairs incident to such occupation, was the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars ($750), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed December 10, 1906. A true copy. Test this 14th day of December, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, • Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, LAMBERTS POINT, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10990. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church at Iiamberts Point, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for rent of building alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the la,te war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Commit- tee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 3d day of February, 1903. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 19th day of Decem- ber, 1904. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimants and the Attorney-General, by F. DeO. Faust, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: That they are the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church at Larnberts Point, Va. ; that during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of said Methodist Church and used and occupied the same for military purposes, by 350 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIJST CLAIMS. reason of which repairs were rendered necessary, and the United States is justly indebted to said church, as follows: For use and occupation of church building, three years, at $360 per year |1, 080 For repairs rendered necessary on account of such use and occupation 300 Total 1, 380 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Church of Lamberts Point, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of and used the church building belonging to the" Methodist Episcopal Church of Lamberts Point, Va., for military purposes, and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value thereof, including repairs incident to said use and occupation, was the sum of seven hundred and eighty dollars (S780). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed December 22, 1904. A true copv. * Test this 36th day of December, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. WEST VIRGINIA. CHARLES COOK, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOHN COOK. ICourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 10310. Estate of John Cook, deceased, v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that John Cook, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have lieen taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed January 7, 1907. (Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10310. John Cook, deceased, Charles Cook, the administrator, V. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 15th day of January, 1901. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 7th day of January, 1907, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 24th day of October, 1907. George A. & William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- eral, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of tlie interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: I. That he is the administrator of John Cook, deceased, his warrant of authority beintc herewith brousrht into court; that said decedent was during the late war a ALLOWANCE OF CEETATN CLAIMS. 351 resident of the State of West Virginia, and did not give any aid or comfort to the said rebellion, but was throughout that war loyal to the Government of the United States. II. That the following property belonging to said John Cook was taken from him by the United States Army, the date, place, and command being particularly stated below: In Fayette County, in the State of West Virginia, in the winter of 1862, by Lieut. R. B. Gardner, quartermaster Twenty-third Ohio Volunteers, stationed at Fayette- ville, to wit, 27 head of beef cattle, at |30 a head, $810. III. That a claim for said property was presented to the Commissary-General, the items of said claim being as heretofore stated. Said claim was not allowed by said tribunal, the ground for said action being that it was not considered that the claim was just. That no other action than as aforesaid has been had on this claim 'in Congress or by any of the Departments; that the claimant is the sole owner of this claim and the only person interested therein; that no assignment or transfer of this claim, or of any part thereof or interest therein, has been made; that the claimant is justly entitled to the amount herein claimed from the United States after allowing all just credits and offsets; that the claimant is a citizen of the United States, and the claimant believes the facts as stated in this petition to be true. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. During the late civil war the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority, took from the claimant's decedent in Fayette County, State of West Virginia, property of the kind and character described in the petition. The reasonable value thereof at the time and place of taking was the sum of five hun- dred and fifty dollars (|550). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By THE Court. Filed October 28, 1907. A true copy. Test this 29th day of November, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ANDREW^ CROUCH ET AL., ADMINISTRATORS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 1477. Estate of Jacob Crouch, deceased, v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for then- use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Jacob Crouch, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed March 9, 1903. [ Court of Claims. Congressional case, No. 1477. Andrew Crouch, Newton Crouch, and B. L. Butcher, executors of Jacob Crouch, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the Stli day of Feb- ruary, 1887. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 9th day of March, 1903, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of November, 1904. 352 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. G. AV. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- tion of the interests of the United States. The claimants in then petition make the following allegations: That they are citizens of the United States, residing in the coimty of Randolph, State of West Vu-ginia; and that they are the legal representatives of Jacob Crouch, deceased, formerly a citizen of said county and State; that said decedent resided dming the late war of 1861 in the county of Randolph and State of Virginia, and that as legal representatives your petitioners have a claim against the United States for stores and supplies taken by or furnished to the Army of the United States by Jacob Crouch for army use, at or near Elkwater, Randolph County, W. Va., at the timps hereinafter stated and by the officers named : 2 horses at |150 |300. 00 20,000 rails, 262i cords wood at $3.50 918.75 1,000 cords of standing timber at $1 1, 000. 00 30 tons of hay at §20 per ton 600. 00 500 bushels of corn at SI per bushel '. 500. 00 100 head of cattle at $50 per head 5, 000. 00 50 head of sheep at |6 per head 300. 00 Total 8, 618. 75 (Taken in the fall of 1861 by General Reynolds's command.) The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. There was taken from the claimants' decedent, in Randolph County, State of West Virginia, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of three thousand seven hundred and ten dollars (83,710), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed December 5, 1904. A true copy. Test this 15th day of February, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. WARWICK BUTTON, ADMINISTRATOR. Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 6020. Warwick Hutton, administrator of Samuel Morrison deceased, v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Samuel Morrison (now deceased), the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed January 10, 1898. Court of Claims. Congressional case Xo. 6020. Warwick Hutton, administrator of Samuel Morrison, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 20th dav of August, 1888. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 10th day of January, 1898, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIiq- CLAIMS. 353 The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 30th day of October, 1902. George A. King, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : That he is the administrator of the estate of Samuel Morrison, deceased; that the following property belonging to Samuel Morrison was taken from him by the U. S. Army and used by the said Army : 13 horses, at $125 each $1, 625 3 mules, at |150 each 450 2, 075 Taken in Randolph County, in the State of West Virginia, on or about July 20, 1861, by the United States forces, namely. Colonel Key, aid-de-camp of General McClellan's command. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments af counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OP FACTS. There was taken from claimant's decedent, in Randolph County, State of West Virginia, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United' States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was there and then reasonably worth the sum of one thousand three hundred and forty dollars ($1,340). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed November 3, 1902. A true copy. Test this 4th day of December, A. D, 1902. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. . WILLIAM W. MYERS, EXECUTOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 8813. William "W. Myers, executor of James W. Myers, deceased, v. The United States.] Order allowing defendant's motion for new trial, withdrawing former findings, and filing new findings for the sum of $650. It is ordered by the court that the defendant's motion for a new trial in the above- entitled case, filed on the 12th day of October, 1897, be allowed; that the findings of fact heretofore filed on the 13th day of January, 1896, be withdrawn, and new findings of fact are this day filed in claimant's favor for the sum of $650. By the Court. Filed December 11, 1905. A true copy. Test this 21st day of December, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 8813. William W. Myers, executor of James W. Myera, deceased, v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 23d day of March, 1892. j On a preliminary inquiry the court on the 12th day of June, 1893, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were H. Rep. 543, 60-1 23 354 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. alleged to haA'e been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 4th day of December, 1905. Moyers & Consaul, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Felix Brannigan, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : That he is the executor of James W. Myers, deceased, who resided in the county of Jefferson, State of West Virginia, dming the late war of the rebellion; that at different times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from him quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $1,665 and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Anny, as follows: 1,000 bushels corn $1, 000 20 tons hay 400 50 bushels wheat 75 26 sheep ] 30 10 days' use of team 60 Total 1, 665 The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP PACT. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion there was taken from the claim- ant's decedent, in the county of Jefferson, State of West Virginia, by the military forces of the United States, under proper authority, for the use of the AiTny, property of the kind and character above described which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of six hundred and fifty dollars ($650), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed December 11, 1905. A true copy. Test this 21st day of December, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. HENRY O'BANNON AND WILLIAM A. O'BANNON. ' [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 1982. Henry O'Bannon and William A. O'Bannon, sole heirs of Alfred O'Bannon, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 2d day of March, On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 8th day of April, 1889, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or fi'om whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 20th day of March, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: That they are citizens of the State of West Virginia, residing in the county of Jef- ferson, in which county decedent resided during the late war of the rebellion. That during said war the military authorities of the United States took from the farm of their decedent divers supplies, which were used by said troops for their sup- port, and which supplies belonged to and were owned by decedent, and which were of the value of $528, as follows: 408 bushels of com, at $1 $408 6 tons of hay, at $20 120 Total 528 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 355 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in the county of Jefferson, State of West Virginia, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and char- acter above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of three hundred and four dollars (1304), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed April 5, 1905. A true copy. Test this 3d day of June, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. H. L. BRISCOE; heir of MARIA SHIRLEY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10950. Estate of Maria Shirley, deceased, v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Maria Shirley, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By THE Court. Filed November 2, 1903. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10950. H. L. Briscoe, sole heir of Maria Shirley, deceased, v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fiu-nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 13th day of January, 1903. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 2d day of November, 1903, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies and stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of November, 1905. C. A. Brandenburg, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant, in his petition, makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States, residing at Winston, Culpeper County, State of Virginia; that Maria Shirley resided during the late war of the rebellion in Jefferson County, State of West Virginia; that at different times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from Maria Shirley quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $438 and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows, in March, 1862: 1^ tons of timothy hay, at $20 $30. 00 4 tons straw, at $10 40. 00 4 acres timber, 25 cords per acre, at $1 100. 00 720 panels fence, 9 rails per panel, 80 rails per cord, 81 cords, at $3 243. 00 1 acre timber, 25 cords per acre, at $1 25. 00 Total 438. 00 356 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Jefferson County, State of' West Virginia, dxiring the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and sixty dollars (|260), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed December 4, 1905. A true copy. Test this 13th day of December, 1905., [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOSEPH C. SMITH. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10216. Joseph C. Smith v. The United States.] This caee, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Joseph C. Smith, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed October 26, 1903. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10216. Joseph C. Smith v. The United States.] statement of case. * The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 18th dav of March, 1900. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 26th day of October, 1903, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of December, 1906. G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Jefferson County, State of West Virginia, and that he resided during the late war of the rebellion in Washington Couuty, Md.; that at different times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from him quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $1,100 and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows: ^ 36 tons of hay, at $25 per ton $900 200 bushels of oats, at $1 per bushel 200 Total - 1, 100 Taken in July and August, 1864, by General Custer's command. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following findings Ot" FACT. I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of and ALLOWAlSrCE OP CERTAIlSr CLAIMS. 357 used quartermaster stores as above described belonging to claimant, Joseph C. Smith, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of six hundred and twenty dollars ($620). It does not appear that payment has been made for any part thereof. By the Court. Filed December 24, 1906. A true copy. Test this 2d day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerh Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF THE FREE CHURCH OF BURLINGTON, W. VA. rCourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 11356. The Free Church of Burlington, W. Va., v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that the Free Church of Burlington, W. Va., as a church, the church alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed December 19, 1904. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11356. Trustees of the Free Church of Burlington, W. Va., v. The United States.] statement op case. The claim in the above-entitled case for the rent of church building, alleged to have been used by the military forces of the United States, for their use during the ate war for the> suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 17th day of IVlarch, 1904. On a preliminary inquiry on the 19th day of December, 1904, the court found that the church alleged to have furnished the building was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of December. 1904. G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: That in the fall of 1861 the military forces of the United States, under command of Gen. B. F. Kelley, took possession of said church building and grounds, and the same was occupied continuously by different commands of the United States Army for a period of three and one-half years from said date for quarters and barracks; that by reason of such use and occupation repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value of said property during the time it was so occupied, including the repairs neces- sary to restore the building to the condition in which it was before said occupancy began, was the sum of 1935.32, for which no payment has been made. The coiut, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of and used for hospital purposes the .church building belonging to the Free Chiu-ch of Burlington, ]\Iineral County, State of West Virginia, and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value thereof, includ- ing repairs made necessary by such use and occupation, was the sum of eight hundred and ninety-five dollars (|895). Np payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed December 19, 1904. A true copy. Test this 20th day of December, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 358 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. WASHINGTON. JOSEPH HINSON. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12169-68. Joseph Hinson v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House 6f Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Pierce, in the State of Washington. 2. That he, being the lieutenant-colonel of Thirty- third Regiment of Ohio Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Ohio as colonel thereof on June 26, 1865; and t"hat from and after said date he assumed and per- formed all the duties of his said grade until July 19, 1865, when he was mustered out as lieutenant-colonel; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number pre- scribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of colonel during said period. _ 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a lieutenant-colonel although he was in the continuous performance of the duties of colonel. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the coiu't makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Joseph Hinson, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Pierce, in the State of AVashington. 2. On June 26, 1865, the said Joseph Hinson was lieutenant-colonel of Thirt^^-thml Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered out of the service, to wit, on July 19, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863. (12 Stat* L., 734.) The colonel of said Thirty-third Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of colonel devolved upon this claim- ant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of colonel of said Thirty-third Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry. The governor of the State of Ohio also issued to this claimant a commission as colonel Thirty-third Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said June 26, 1865, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as colonel of said Thirty-third Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infan- try, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of colonel until he was mustered out of the service as lieutenant-colonel, July 19, 1865. 4. If the said Joseph Hinson should be deemed colonel of Thirty-third Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between bis pay and allowances as a lieutenant-colonel which he has received and that of a colonel to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from June 26, 1865, to July 19, 1865, would amount to §115.41 (one hundred and fifteen dollars and forty-one cents), as reported by the Auditor for the A\'ar Department, including short payment and income tax on remuster. By THE Court. Filed March 11, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed bv the court. Test this 13th day of March, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIlSr CLAIMS. 359 WISCONSIN. IRVING V. BLISS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12640-3. Irving V. Bliss v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted ,to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of April, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, / by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for thei defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and I'esident in the city of Milwaukee, in the State of Wisconsin. 2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company E, Twenty-seventh Regiment of Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry, was duly appointed and commissioned by the governor of the State of Wisconsin as second lieutenant thereof on December 6, 1864, and that from and after said date he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grade until March 10, 1865, when he was mustered in as such; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason, and no other, he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant dur- ing said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and .allowances of a first sergeant, although he Avas in the continuous performance of the duties of second lieutenant. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of coimsel, the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Irving V. Bliss, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the city of Milwaukee, in the State of Wisconsin. 2. On December 6, 1864, the said Irving V. Bliss was first sergeant of Company E, Twenty-seventh Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until he was mustered into the service, to wit, on March 10, 1865, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Order No. 182 of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., p. 734). The second lieutenant of said Company E, Twenty-seventh Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade, the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of Company E, Twenty-seventh Regi- ment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry. The governor of the State of Wisconsin also issued to this claimant a commission as second lieutenant, Company E, Twenty-seventh Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry. 3. On the said December 6, 1864, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company E, Twenty-seventh Regi- ment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its mini- mum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered into the service as such March 10, 1865. 4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from December 6, 1864, to March 10, 1865, this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. 6. If the said Irving V. Bliss should be deemed second lieutenant of Company E, Twenty-seventh Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry, and entitled to the pay of that grade, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from December 6, 1864, to March 9, 1865, would amount to 1334.22 (three hundred and thirty-four dollars and twenty-two cents) as reported by the Auditor for the War Department, including |50 bounty, act July 28, 1866, and $3.67 income tax erroneously deducted. By the Court. Filed April 1, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 2d day of April, 1907. [seal.] . John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 360 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAUsT CLAIMS. HIRAM F. LYKE. [Court of Claims. Congreasional, No. 10733. Hiram F. Lyke v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case was transmitted to the court by the Committee , on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 14th day of May, 1902. The case •was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of January, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and the protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Waukesha, in the 'f late of Wisconsin. 2. That he, being the first sergeant of Company F, Twenty-eighth Regiment of Wisconsin Volunteer Infantiy, was duly appointed or commissioned by the governor of the State of Wisconsin as second lieutenant thereof to rank from June 30, 1863, and fijst lieutenant August 11, 1863, and that from and after said dates he assumed and performed all the duties of his said grades until October 11, 1863, when he was mus- tered in as first lieutenant; said regiment was continuously below the minimum number prescribed by law and regulation, and for this reason and no other he was refused muster and recognition in the grade of second lieutenant during said period. 3. That during said period he was allowed and paid only the pay and allowances of a fiji'st sergeant, although he was in the continuous performance of the duties ol second lieutenant and first lieutenant from June 30 and August 11, 1863, respectively. Upon the reports furnished by the War and Treasury Departments and upon other evidence and upon briefs and arguments of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. Hiram F. Lyke, the claimant in this case, is a citizen of the United States and resident in the county of Waukesha, in the State of Wisconsin. 2. On June 30, 1863, the said claimant was fii'st sergeant of Company F, Twenty- eighth Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry. On that date and until October 11, 1863, the same was and continued to be below the minimum number prescribed by General Orders, No. 182. of the War Department of June 20, 1863, carrying into effect section 20 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 734). The second lieutenant of said Company F, Twenty-eighth Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry, being then and thereafter out of service in said grade the duties of second lieutenant devolved upon this claimant, who then and thereafter assumed and performed all the duties of second lieutenant of said Company F, Twenty-eighth Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry, until August 11, 1863, when he was promoted to be first lieutenant thereof and mustered as such October 11, 1863. The governor of the State of Wisconsin also issued to tliis claimant commissions as second and first lieutenants of Company F, Twenty-eighth Regiment Wisconsin Vol- unteer Infantry. 3. On the said June 30, 1863, the mustering officer then and thereafter refused to muster this claimant as second lieutenant of said Company F, Twenty-eighth Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry, solely because his command was below its minimum strength, as aforesaid, although he continued to perform the duties of second lieutenant until he was mustered into the service, as aforesaid. 4. During the period aforesaid, to wit, from June 30, 1863, to October 11, 1863, this claimant employed no servant not enlisted. 5. During said period this claimant did draw rations from the Government. 6. If the said Hiram F. Lyke should be deemed second lieutenant of Company F, Twenty-eighth Regiment Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry, from June 30, 1863, and first lieutenant fi'om August 11, 1863, and entitled to the pay of these gi-adcs, the difference between his pay and allowances as a first sergeant, which he has received, and that of a second lieutenant and first lieutenant, to which he would have been entitled had he been mustered for the period from June 30, 1863, and August 11, 1863, respectively, to October 10, 1863, would amount to $188.56, without any deduction for income tax, as reported by the Auditor for the War Department. 7. Incorne tax, if to be deducted, would amount to $3.51, leaving a balance of one hundred and eighty-five dollars and five cents (1185.05). Filed January' 7,1907. By the Court. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 9th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims, LEJe-Oa O -c^