Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1865-05-13
1nrPoRTANT DEoIsioN.

AnO"As y: AoEHTI ASST. sAdJt. Gen
| -F7FT=T7 ~ - s-- s------------
InrPoRTANF DEoIsIoN.
Rebel Raiders Liable in DnmRRea for
TheTts, DepredRtIons or Injuries
Conn ltted by them During their
RAIDS into West Virginia.,
WESTON, May 9th, 1865.
Editors LntelLigsncer: ." u!
At the term of the Circuit Court of Lew.
is county, now in session, Judge Irvine
presiding, Case of much interest to MANY
persons was tried and determined, and as
1t is the first case of the. sort. which has
been contested by the defendants and ,trikd
IN the courts of this State, propose to
give you q brief outlin or report, of it for
your paper if you regard it matter of suf.
hcIent public importance for publication.
The case was as tfollows:L William
Shirley, loyal citizen of Lewis county.
brought an action of trespass against
Marshall Triplett and others, to recover
the value OF twenty. five head'of cattle
carried Awsy by them on the 9th day of
May 1868. Two of the defendants Trim.
lett and Yerky appeared by counsel and
plead not guilty. The substance of the
evidence was, that rebel raid was made
into this Country about the 6rst of NAV
1868, one of the purposes of which 70 id
was to take and carry away cattle from
this country for the use of the said
rsidiug army; that all Of the said
defendants, except the defendant Yerkev.
belonged to oriwere in some way connected
with the raidiug party, and were albpR
with them at the time they were in this
country, that the said raidiug party took
twenty -iveah aheadof cattle beloneiDe to Ethe
paintif, of the value of $25 per head, with.
out hissconsent, d6d carried them aHav
with themn blt itiWas not proved that any.
of the defendants were actually personally
nEeaent ~ ben the cattle were taken, or
After the teYfdenee was closed M, Max.
'welI,i COUNSEL for ths pldidtid 6 kked the
Court to afnstt1et the idFylas follows:
"H thG jury beliHVe feomdtha Evidence
that about the lastiof1ApFil or the first Of
May, 1868, q body of mepi ceme into this
country, without the authority of the
United States, or the laws Of the restored
government of the State Of Virginia, and
that the purpose or one of the purposes of
the said body of men in comiug into the
| country was to take and carry away cattle.
not their own, without the consent of the
owner or owners thereof; that the said
body of men did take and carry away the
cattle of the plaintiff without his consent !;
L 0A0 SL0t kAo hQY one or more
of them, belonged to the said body of men
at that time, or were in aDy way connected
with them, then 1t is the duty of the iury in
this case to ind verdict 10 favor of the
plaintiff against the said defendants, Or
such of them as belonged to the said BODY
of men, or were in any way connected with
them, for the value of the cattle so taken.
with interest on such value from the time
the cattle were taken, although the said
defendants may not have been personallv
present at the time the cattle were taken. Il
And Judge Edmiston, of counsel for de.
fendants, asked the court to instruct the
jury as follow5sL.
"If the jury believed from the evil
dence that the cattle of the plaintiff in the
declaration described, were taken by the
l,army of the soicalled Confederate States OF
America, within the military lines of the
army Of the United States, and were used,
and taken to be used tor-the support of tbe
army of the so-talled Confederate States.
and that the defendants were members ~
the said army at the time Of the taking al
said cattle, then the defendants are NOT
liable to the plaintiff for the value of said
cattle.
2. "If the jury believe from the evidence
thot tho cattle -ofstha pIain.iF iu tbs dec.
lsration described were captured and taken
by the army of the so.called Confederate
States, belligerent power then at war
with the government of the United States,
that the defendants are not liable to the
plaintiff for the value thereof, although
they were officers, soldiers or members q
said army of the so-called Confederate
States, by which said cattle were taken.
3. "It the jury believe from the eyi,
dencs that the cattle of the plaintiff 10 the
declaration mentioned, were captured and
taken by the military authority of the gov.
ernmentof the &C. .called Confederate States
forthe use thereof, whilst engaged in civil
war with the government of the United
States, that then the defendants are no,
} liable TO the plaintiff for the value thereo,
although they constituted at the time q
), such taking part of such military force. ,
Mr.. Maxwell objected to the Instruction.
asked for by Jadge Edmiston, and Judge
J E. objected to the instructions asked by
Mr.. Nj r.sl me-.
The court upon mature onsideration re-.
fused to give to the jury any of the in
structions asked for by the. counsel for de
PENDANTS, and gave to the jury the instruc
tions asked for by plaintiffs counsel, ant
} the case being submitted to the jury O,
. the evidence and instructions they fouu,
Q verdict for the plaintiff for the amoun
claimed against all of the defendants. bu
) Yerky. The counsel for defendant, Trip
lett, then asked for new trial on III
: ground that the verdict of the Jury wa
t contrary to law and evidence; but the conr
. oyerruled the motion and entered Judge
/. ment on the verdict. '.o r- 10
This case was contested with great earn
estnsss on the part of the defendants, an
!, its result has settled, SO far as circui
court can settle any question, that all per