The Local news. [volume] (Alexandria, Va.) 1861-1862, 1861-10-30


case which is presented by the suit of Ger
tain Northern firms against Wilmer Il Co.
in the Military Court, the decision, f
affirmed by the President of the United
States, involves important conseq uences to
merchants of this city, and wherever else in
the States south of us the Federal army may
enter, we think proper to present the same
entire to our readers:-
OPINION OF THE COURT IN THE CASES OF
Bowen, Holmes Il Co., vs.. George X. Wit
mer u Bros, and Morris L. Hallowell &
Co., vs.. George X. Wilmer & Bros, and
Wilmer & Co.
In an action of Debt the Plaintiffs pray.
ing the aid of the Provost Military Court,
because of the alleged fact that two of the
Defendants are beyond the rebel lines, and
believed to be aiding and abetting the enemy.
These are actions brought by Bowen,
Holmes s. Co., of New York city, and Nor
ris L. Hallowell & Co., of Philadelphia, TO-
recover from George X. Wilmer & Bros,
and Wilmer Il Co., late of this city, the
amounts due on four certain promssary
notes, drawn by Geo. X. Wilmer Il Bros, to
the order of Bowen, Holmes & Co., amounting
in the aggregate to five thousand, five hun.
dred and thirty-six dollars and seventy cents
(S5, 536.7O) with interest from the time thew
became due; and on Book Account due
Morris l.. Hallowell & Co., from George K.
Wilmer Bros and Wilmer & Co., amount
ing to the aggregate sum Of one thousand.
one hundred and twenty-nine dollars and
eighty-nine cents, Isl. 129.89) with interest
from the time the bills became due. The
proceedings in both these cases were institu.
ted before the Court by this fling of afidavits
by one member Of each Of the said firms, to-
gether with a presentation OF the original
notes by the AFFIDAVIT, Anthony Gilkinson,
one of the firm of Bowen, Holmes & Co., in
the first case; and by statement of the &C.
count, sworn to by Enoch r. Hutchinson,
one of the firm of Morris l.. Hallowell /
Co., in the second case. Both these affida.
Wits, in addition to the facts respecting
their claims, set forth that the two principal
members Of both of said firms, (viz George
X. Wilmer Il Edmund f. Witmer) had fed
from their accustomed place of business to
within the lines Of the enemy, taking with
them, or rather, sending in advance Of them.
large amount Of the goods purchased Of
these plaintiffs and others; and that, to the
best OF their knowledge and belief, both were
now using their means and influence, if not
their own strong arms, in aiding the rebel
lion now in progress against the u. S. Gov
ernment. Such is the spirit if not the exact /
wording of the afidavits in relation to the
defendants. The afHdavits further set forth. /
that the plaintiffs in both cases, ART true and
loyal citizens, and, as such, claim the aid
and authority Of the military power, as rep.
in this Court, to enforce the coilec-
ion OF their respective clams-it being their
'nly means of reiress under the present pc
'ullar condition of affairs consequent on the
ebellion. Upon the proper fling of these
lffidavits, 1.-THE same being subscribed and
worn to in open Court) an order was issued
hat the defendants appear forthwith to an
wer. The order being served at the usual
'lace of business of said firm, or firms, it |
vas found that only single member thereof
emained to answer, namely: A. III. Stay
maker, who appeared and being sworn an !
wered in substance as follows: That he was .
ne of the firm of G. K. Wilmer Bros.,- !
hat his interest in the business was about =
ne-sixth, dependant however, ON contin-
encies-that George K. Wilmer and E. F. d
Wilmer, the two other partners, had gone &
eyond our lines, soon after the battle of {
'uW Run, and were still there as he suppo- r
'd-that they were active, energetic men, a
ut he did not know that they were directly o
Neutrality-suspicious. prior to the n
'cupation ofsa lendria by Government h
oops the t. IL to the interior of "
j !. !. ]
irgInia All u1heir stock-that k
lere re- tesk, at the pre- h
mt, thousand e
'lia1 remaining tt
irtrl receiving a
one had paid O.
} deb bhe did not al
ell thai Savto do-that 2,
!, kneS the claims of RI
owen, ia fprris l.. Hal b.
we'll Il Co.. 9duld 0aid-knew Of IL
offset againbs The lsfthat at pre- "
he had, he did not Tea Aat he bad any any ST 8,
lthority to pay the debts OF the firm, in the h,
,sence of the principal members thereof W
e further stated in reply to enquiries by Pal
e Court, that the firm was abundantly able
pay their debts--rhat G. K. Wilmer, he tn