Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1867-08-10
Wet Va. Court Of Appeals.

West Va. Court Of Appeals.
In the case OF Nadenblusch IL Riddle
vs.. Sharer and Martin, from Berkeley
county, Brown, ]. delivered the opinion
o. the Court, reversing the Judgment OF
The Court be ow and az arding a new trial.
A b,ief ha,o.y of this case is as follG vs.:
Sui, was bropghl by Sharer and Mari.
in The Berkeley Circuit Court, against
NadenbC usoh aud RIDDLE, to recover the
value of lumber seized and carried away
for the use of The rebel army. Judgment
was obtained agains; them for $4,000, from
which judgmen, Nadeubousch and Riddle
appealed The defendants in error (Sha-
rer aud Martini obtained rule or ordr'r
niSt, al former term of lhs Appellate
Court, 10 pursuance OF the gets 10 prevent
the prosecution Of suits oAd tbG suing out
process by persons ongsge2 in rebellion,
discussing the case, unIrss the PlaInufs
in error, (NadenbouS Oh and Riddle should
take the oaths prescribed. known as the
"Suiior's ,osih," as mentioned above.
Judge E:own, after reviewing the acts OF
tie Legislature in relation 10 "SuiIor's
paths" comes TO the conclusion that The
Legislature did not intend tina, trial
should be defeated. in the one case, when
onu Of the Plain,fls was loyal and took
the oath required; and that in the other
case, rehearing should no, be defeated
when one of the defendants was loyal and
took the prescribed oath; "but that me
suit should be dismissed where The defen-
dsnls, or any one Of them took and filed
The preliminary oaths Of loyalty, unless
tho plaintiffs or some One Of them, should
take and file the oath of. loyalty required
of Them. II will be perceived that the
question Of the consliu,ionalily of the
acts prescribing 1.-The sui'or's OATH was
not raised b. counsel, nor decided by The
court.
Mn the case OF Lickider aad others, vs..
FuIk and others, from Jefferson county,
on milton for n writ Of restitution, Max
well, j. delivered the opinion of the Court,
overriding the motion. This was mo-
ton Of The plaintiffs to restore the church
and parsonage to The parties who held the
property. when the writ of 2upcrsedels
was granted. ..,
o.. Our attention has been called, by a
friend in Jefferson county, Va, 10 the fol-
lowing notice which appeared in some of
the papers
ain The Surrau trial, few days since,
Gen. f.. G. Lee, Of the Confederate ar
nv, was introduced as a witness for the
de'ence, when three or four persons were
brought forward, who testified they ould
moi believe Gen. Lee en- OATH
This is a mistake, ard does in uslice 10
high. sOuled Virginian and a gallan, o IL
Gel Of The late Confederate army. The
person referred TO is John Lee, a Penn
sylv5nian, who was : witness 70: the
prosecution.
The examination OF the witnesses who
impeached the testimony Of John Lee was
heard JUS, before Gen. Lee was inrodu-
ced by the counsel engaged in defence OF
Surrait. Hence the bunder, which seems
to bo rather inexcus0ble. Gen. E. G.
Lee, is a native Of jefferson county. and
son OF f. |, Lee, Esq, whose house, ii
NAV be remembered, was burned by or
der of Gen. David Hunter Edmund l.
Lee is a cousin, we believe, oil Gen. L.
f.. Lee. The above statement is made
in Justice TO an injured gentleman, whose
character, as we happen to know,is above
suspiciou.--Lynchbwg rirginian'