The star of the north. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1849-1866, 1866-01-10
TIms,s WhIrlIgIg.

case.
sui has been commenced> in The Su-
preme Court, in this city, against Edwin NJ.
Stanton, Secretary of War, for one hundred
thousand dollars damages, for the false i'm
prisonmeni of one of the owners OF The
ninety-fve tons of tobacco seized and de-
stroyed at fredericksburg in March last, By
order Of the War Department. The case
came up yesterday al Chambers, before
Judge Sutherland, on motion by plaintiffs
counsel 10 strike on, parts of Ihe answer as
redundant, Irrelevant and contradictory, or
| TO require defendant 10 make it more def.
niie and certain. The plaintiff, Mr.. Joseph
| H. Maddox, claims that with the knowledge
and consent OF the proper authorities, and
with full and lawful permit and authority;
he had obtained possession Of the tobacco.
and was engaged in transferring il within
the lines near fredericksburg, when, by
the order and procurement OF Mr.. Stanton
the properly was seized, and he was him.
self arrested in violation OF all law, and
thrown into prison at Baltimore, under the
name of James Brown. The complaint al
eges that The plaintiff, in addition 10 the ar
rest above stated, was also on the 18Th OF
April 1864, while he was a good and legal
citizen, and bad borne and conducted him
self as such, ''wihont any Just or lawful or
lrighiiuI authority, and in defiance and der
ogaien OF his rights, wanlonly and mali.
| cously caused and procured to be arrested"
by the defendant. aud imprisoned al Camp
Hamilton near Fortress Monroe, and a;
Washington until tie slh of June. AT the
time OF The second arrest. on the 14;h OF
March last, the defendant, ii is alleged, we'll
knew the plaintiffs real name, aud that he
had done nothing in violation of any law,
but imprisoned him under The name ef
James Brown, for the purpose of keeping
he fact OF ihe tobacco seizure a secret IN
known TO his friends or counsel, and so
that no legal steps coold be taken for his
discharge and FOR The same reason all ac-
cess was denied him, and he was detained
for sky nine days until President Johnson
released HIM by special order The
plaintiff, during the whole period Of his in
carceTalion, was kept in ignorHnce Of the
cause OF his arrest; no charge or complsint
was made against him no counsel was al
lowed to see him, and be finally had 10 pay
thousands of money 10 the governmen,
agents TO have the opportunity of sending
letter 10 his wife. Al the time of his arTes
all of his papers showing the legality OF
the transaction he was engaged in were
taken away from him and never returned.
His final release was effected through an
application made OF his behalf 10 President
Johnson, and was granted against the ad
vice o Mir Stanton. When a similar ap.
plicaion was made 10 Mr. Lincoln, Mr. SIAN
ton iried 10 Gissuade him from making any
order for plaintiffs discharge.
Mr. Sianion's answer, which was SWORN
to or The fifth of December, first claims that
The Conrt has 10 jurisdiction in the case, for
ihe reason that neither of the parties are
residents OF this city; that tie defendant is
resident Of The City OF Washington, and
then was and sill is Secretary of War under
tie government of the Uniled States; that
none Of the alleged wrongs, injuries and
Irespasses occurred within the State The
defendsu, then makes general and also
qualified denial He denies that the plain
ti4 vas arrested by him or his order, ard
then alleges on Information that Maddox
was arrested for violation of The articles Of
war, and FOX certain military fences against
the government, and was for time kept in
custody hereunder; ,ha, plainliff by him
self or counsel made requests to the defend
ant, in his official capacity as Secretary OF
War, 10 be released on parole and bail, TO be
lred By military l'ibnnal. The answer
then reciles thai The United States was then
engaged in the suppression of rebellion
that fredericksburg was in the immediate
neighboThood OF The field of hosiiities, and
that Baltimore was subject to martial law,
under the proclamation of the President
and sanctioned by act OF Congress: that
lrafic with the enemy was subject 10 militia
~ control; that plaintiff, as defendant was
informed, was arrested by order of the P7o.
vosi Marshal of Baltimore, in conjunction
with Mr.. E Marin and J. F. Monahau, ard
held fer unlawful intercourse, correspon-
dence, traffic, and commerce with the
enemy and 9Th The inhabitants of the re-
bellious States, and engaged in the trans
pOrtaiion OF goods therein, in violation of
ihe articles OF war and The act of Congress
that an examination was directed to be made
aud upon il The bureau of military justice rec
ommended that The plaintiff be held for trial
before military court: that what defendant
did was no more than be should justly do
and was bound 10 do as Secretary OF War
while hosiiilies were pending. Mr. STAN
ten, in conclusion, pleads in bar 10 any
remedy by The plaintiff, The ACT Of Congress
of MaTch 3, 1863, claiming that all be did