Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1862-01-30

counsel Tor the defendant also contenGed
that property acquired anterior to the
commencement O. the war or rebellion
could not become the subject Of confscu-
ton. This might be true or not. It is
clear, however, that il the proDertv TINS
acquired should be transferred OF dirpNsed
of tor the purpose prohibited by this Net
the forfeiture would thereby accrue.
1t was further cOntended by one of the
counsel for the defence that the words in
the first clause "Or any person or personS
engaged therein" did not or could not in
clude the owner described in the second
clause. He held that if the owner permit
ted another person who was engaged in
the rebellion to use the property of such
owner to "0id, ubet or promote the prr
son SO engaged, the property in that case
would become forfeited But il the own
er himself, being so engaged, should use
tue property to aid himself, such forfeiture
could not accrue. The reading of the sta
tute would be in conflict with the language
OF the act. The words person Or persons
engaged in the rebellion include the own
ers aS well rs any other person. If he (thc
owner) is engaged in the rebellion. The
act should read "auy other persdn or per-
sons other than the owners engaged there
in" If it was intended to exclude the
owner.
am therefore of opinion that ii au own
er who is engaged in the rebellion uses
his own property to aid, aoet or promote
himself, while engaged in the rebellion,
the property so used is forfeited. Aud
that if he permits others who arc engaged
in the rebellion to use his property to aid,
abet and promote such others so engaged,
IT is likewise forfeited.
The property is also forfeited if the own
eT knowingly uses or permits others to use
the property, to aid, abct or promote the
insurTection.
1t was suggested by one of the counsel
for the defendant that the words '.prize"
and capture" might be regarded as con-
inning the section to marine and not land
seizures. The words "wherever found"
which follow the words "prize and cap.
ture' are general, aud embrace all locaii-
ties, whether upon land or sea The Court.
however, did not understand the counsel
as pressing this position.
Russell recdtted-The letter OF which |
testified yesterday, has been Destroyed
lett here to be gone some months, and des-
troyed number of papers among them it.
(Wltness here produced the order from
DIR. Houston.) That order came in letter
from DIR. Houston's daughter to Miss Zane;
as learned after the Court adjourned yes-
tcrday.
Mr.. Lee strorn-Have been at Winches-
ter; know DIR. Houston; was at Winchester
about two weeks before l was taken pris-
oner, was taken prisoner about six weeks
ago; was nOtnt the hospital.
Gen. Wheat stated that there were two
witnesses whose attendance could not be
procured this morning, by whose direct
evidence the government expected to prove
the present position of DR.. Houston in the
Southern army; but, having proved that at
Que time he was in that position, the legal
presumption, growing out of his continued
absence from his ordinary residence, and
the continuance of the rebellion, were sutfi-
cient aud competent evidence of tho pres
eut continued rebellion of the defendant.
In support of the position, Gen. Wheat
quoted several authorities, aud argued that
the burthcn of proof in contradiction of
this legal presumption was upon the de-
fendnnt.
Mr.. Caldwell suggested that the defend
ant not beng represented in Court, the
principle would not apply, MS laid down in
the authorities quoted by Gen. Wheat.
Gen. w. quoted the order of publication,
and cOntendcd that the defendant was
strictly in Court
The Court decided that the direct evil
dence, to which the counsel for the Gov
ernmeut had referred, must be produced,
and the Marshal was directed to bring the
witness.
Miss HULLIuES testified that she was at
Culpepper Court House in November last;
saw Dr. Houston and family there; there
were soldiers therei the DR.. expressed great
confidence in the probabilities of the sue
cess of the Southern Coutedcracy, and did
not speak of returning home.
Col Smith tlInn
the jury.
At the conclusion of Col. Smiths re-
marks, the jury retired, and, after brief
absence, came into Court and returned the
following verdict:
We, the Jury, iind-That the President
of the Uvited States has declared by proc
lam"tiOn, that the laws of the United States
are opposed and the execution thereof OBJ
structed, by combinations too powerful to
be suppressed by the ordinary course of
Judicial proceeding or the powers vested
in the MHrshals by law.
That Matthew II. Houston, late of Ohio
county, in this District, ia now aud has
been since the month of June, last, eu-
gagged in said insurrcctiOn and resistance
to the laws.
That the said Houston is now and since
the month of June last, has been the law
full owner of the personal property set
forth and described in the schedule an-
nexed to the information filed in this case
That the said Houston, by his agent,
was in the act of converting and removing
said property, that the same, OF the pro-
ceeds of the sale thereof, should be used
or employed in aiding him, the said Hous-
ton, whilst so engaged as aforesaid, in aide
ing the said iusurrection anu resistance to
the laws and that the whole of said pro-
Perty hes been seized by and is now in the
possession of the Marshal of this Court.
The verdict of the jury having been
rendered, the Court appended to it the an-
uexed order:
And thereupon the Court, upon an e1-
animation of the verdict-doth Judge aud
order that the nroperty in said schednle.