Case ID: us-ct-cl_4/html/0489-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Milligan, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Philip Hayes v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      Thirty-six barrels of turpentine belonging to the claimant aire seised in Charleston and shipped to New Yorlc. Se proves that a greater quantity is sold by the Treasury agent in New York, but fails to identify his own turpentine as a part of that sold.
    
    Where the evidence does not show that the identical property of the claimant was sold hy the agents of the Treasury, hut does show that it was captured and shipped to New York from Charleston, and that a larger quantity of the same kind of property was sold in New York, it is sufficient to satisfy the court that the claimant's property formed a part of that sold under the Abandoned or captured property act. (12 Stat. L., p. 820.)
    
      Mr. I). 2f. CJooley for tbe claimant.
    
      Mr. B. 8. Sate, special counsel of tbe Treasury, for tbe defendants.
   Milligan, J.,

delivered tbe opinion of tbe court:

In March, 1865, tbe claimant alleges that be was tbe owner of four bales of upland cotton and thirty-six barrels of spbits of turpentine, in tbe city of Charleston, wbicb were seized by tbe military forces of the United States and shipped to New'York, and there sold by the Treasury agents and the proceeds paid into the Treasury of the United States.

The case presents no new question or peculiar state of facts. The claimant proves his loyalty throughout the war, and the ownership and seizure of the cotton and turpentine as avered in his petition. The cotton, under the name of the claimant, is shown to have been entered on the registration books in the Quartermaster General’s office in Charleston, and shipped with the cotton of various other persons to New York, where it was sold and the'proceeds regularly paid into the Treasury.

The record does not disclose the fact that the identical thirty-six barrels of turpentine, alleged to belong to the petitioner, were sold by the Treasury agents in New York ; but it is established beyond controversy that thirty-six barrels were seized and shipped to Colonel Yan Vliet, United States quartermaster, and one hundred and twenty-five barrels which came from Charleston were sold in New York, by order of Simeon Draper, which leaves no doubt as to the sale of the turpentine claimed in this action.

The proceeds of the cotton, four bales upland, we find to be $524 80, and the spirits of turpentine, thirty-six barrels, $1,178 72, amounting to $1,703 52, for which judgment will be entered.