Daily union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1865-1866, 1866-04-20


Steamboat Printing We respectfully solicit a
share Of public patronage. Satisfaction guaran-
teed
THAI oF HESRY BRuSER-FoUETH DAy.-The
Court met pursuant to adjournment, Major
Gen Gillcm presiding. Members Of the Court all
present. Minutes Of the preceding day read. and
approved. Examination Of witnesses was then re
suned, by Col. Irwin being called. lie stated that
the vouchers received were destroyed by the clerk
who had charge of Them to prevent them from
being used again.
Each contractor who put in mules was re
quired TO have private brand, n copy of which
was registered at the corrals. The mules were
branded T. 5. & c. II. l., to show that the witness
had inspected them; alse branded with private
brand Of the party who put them in the corral.
This private brand was to show, that in case the
mules had been stolen, and the fact proven, that
the party who had put them in could be compell-
ed 10 pay the real owner for the stock. After the
mules had been inspected a receipt given to
the party, reading inspected" &c. so many mules.
giving the height. These memorandum receipts
were delivered to the parties at the corrals.
Every day q consolidated report was made.
showing how many mules had been presented for
inspection and how many rejected: also how
many received. These memorandum receipts
were considered rs payable to order and were
bought by the brokers. From April. 1864. lsham
and d. Henderson. Swan and Singleton, and
portion of the time. j. A. Davis, ". X. Boyce. A.
J Rice. Luke Hopkins were in the employment
of the witness. At times there were more than
100 men engaged IN the various departments under
his charge. The bonds given by these various
parties were in the witness Office. All mules
passed through the hands Of Bruner. the Super
iutcndcnt Of Corrals Government stock. strayed
or stolen, was recovered by keeping parties look
ing after them, under the superintendent of
Bruncr. These parties were paid from s. TO SO
per head of stock recovered. Mules picked mp
in this way were reported by Bruner 20 the wit
ness. As 10 losses sustained by the stampeding of
mules they were large. because they wore of
frequent occurrence The clcrl, who gave receipts
for losses sustained in this manner, was in the
olicc of the witness at the time. Vouchers were
issued on the receipts, backed by the reports. As
to daily consolidated reports they were not pre-
serycd-were lost or destroyed in witness Office.
Bruner made reports monthly as to the number of
mules stolen. straycd. lost or shot
Question by Judge Advocate. by what papers
can the fact bc aScertained, n 20 the number Of
mules purchased by Druner?"
Answer hy witness BY abstract b. ef his Office
Parties returned afidavits of stock lost or died
weekly and monthly. Ii was expected the pris
oncr 20 have Il correct report of stock on hands ut
the end II every month, but owing 20 circum-
stances il could not be done, rs hc was sometimes
receiving stosk at Cincinnati and St Louis and
sending It directly TO the extreme front Of the
army; hence weekly and monthly reports could
not possibly be made 10 check Reports of
stock lost estrayed made upon alb
abstract l.: and the nearest approximation 10
accuracy was in the quarterly reports. Reports
Of stock lost by stampcdes N.ere made by Bruncr
after having made every possibly effort 10 receive
Il: and in consideration of the difficulties attend
ing the collection of such stock that often some
three or four weeks would necessarily clapse be-
fore the proper returns could be made.
VIM. Mckay lloge. of Henry county. Kentucky.
was called and sworn. lie testified that he was
acquainted with the accused and had
known him about three years-was in his en-
ploymrut during the summer and autumn
of lSfi-that he left Col. Twins Office at the
foitaton of Bruner.
The witness then stated that he told Rruncr that
he needed funds 10 meet some debts that he owed
ia Virginia and that Bruncr told him that he
would help him. that he would assist him in
paving them. Bruncr then inf, rmel the wit
ness that hc would let him have six or eight thou
sand dollars. lie OBruncr) wanted him to act rs
his clerk. 10 stay at the mule corral. As to his
duties iu this position, they consisted in keeping
an account of the means Of transportation re
cciycd and the quantity issued; AID to make out
the receipts for the mules purchased and received
at the corrals
The witness, on being questioned as to whether
any fraudulent receipts had been given by Bruncr
uruot he replied that lac could not say positively
that any such receipts were given by him
By the Court.-Sntg. whatyo know concerning
ahlsc receipt given 20 Win Davis, some time ia
July or August.
objection was here made by the defence. Point
made was, that the witness did not know Of any
false receipts given by Bruucrs orlcr. and that it
was not proper Cor him Ca answer the question a.
Davis was not on trial.
The JUDGE Advocate replied that q conspiracy
had existed. and he desired To show that Bruncr
was :. party 90 the conspiracy. Judge Bricu cN-
planned that Davis was not on trial. His objec
tiuu was again ovorulcd, and the wltnss
resumed his statement. by SAYING that BruuoI
came into the Office aud told him TO make ouI
e. receipt for Davis for some mules. lie wa
asked 10y some person in the corral Office if th,
mules had been put in the corral that day, whcl
hc replied that ne thought they we're already II
the corral the person questioning him, said b.
could mot see them,
Defense objected ia receiving the conversation
o. evidence. as Bruncr was not present in tn
Office al the time, and that the conversation wa
with q third, unknown party.
Objection ovcuulod. and the witness allowed &
80 uu with his answer. The receipt was writte
aul handed 90 Bruncr when they rode into th
city. and Bruncr called Davis out Of his stabl
and remarked to him that there was a paper tina
belonged 10 him. Davis took IL, turned arouu,
laughed and walked away.
In relation 10 the mules delivered by coutral
ior-. hc could not state the number, although th
corral was in full view 81 his office lie could ~,
state % 20 whether the mules were delivered ,
not. by Davis a. specified IN the receipt he wrot
for him by Burners order.
The receipt Tor the mules was given in the aflcl
noon. a, IL was Burners custom TO visit the oiiC
al that time ofday. but he did not remember th'
any other receipts were given that day, Meth,
did he remember Of any mules being received iut
the corraIs: If any. he did not know it, hut n
ported them Il received. Could not say 60 Il
number of mules received daily. Eruucr ga'
him the 6.nl0 just before hc lci the corrsls i
stated that Bruncr came into the Office one ia
and threw the money down IN an envelope, al
remarked, there's that money" Nothing ci
was said.
The Court cuquirei 10 what Bruncr inca
when he said, there's that money!" He replh
that Bruncr meant that il was the money hc ps
missed 90 loan him.
b the Court: Witness, state positively. did y,
not leave Col lrWin's Office with the express u
derstandinE that you was to receive 5000 Eo
Bruner, and that the money given you was