Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-12-28

Jnlted STATES Court at knoxville, In Wnlcn
the facts ard charges Of the Judge to the
jury, are thus stated by the Free Press CT
the 18th:
THE. CRISP-CHAMBERLAIN CASE.
On yesterday, Judge Trigg delivered mis-
charge to the jury in the case Of Crisp az.
Chamberlain, which mad already engaged
the attention Of. the cont Cor a week 81
more. The defendant wac a commissioned
oahcer, on the staff Of Gen. s. p. Carter.
who, by appointment OF Gen. Burnside,
became Provost Marshal General of East
Tennessee. The plaintiff, at one time had
been connected with the Rebel army. He
owned properly at Knoxville, at the time
of its occupation by the Federal forces.
Much Of this property, it is alleged was
taken possession Of by the defendant and
sold or otherwise converted, 50 that it is
lost to the plaintiff. Hence this suit for
the value Of the property. The defendant
alleges that whatever he may have done
was in pursuance of the orders Of his
superiors, and denies the allegation of the
conversion of the property TO his own use.
He also relies upon the statute Of limita-
TONS
His Honor, We understand, in regard to
the law of the case, instructed the Jury sub
stantially, that il had heretofore been held
by this court, and Is still so held, that the
late armed struggle between the govern
ment Of the United States and that of the
so-called Confederate States, was a civil
war. Both parties were entitled to bellig-
erent rights. Compensation may be made
by and between foreign nations that have
been at war, for injuries done to the citi-
zens Of either nation, but compensation
can not be had in that way, after such
war as ours, or any civil war. II is held
by the United States government, in its
laws, its proclamations, etc, that all the
citizens of the States lately in rebellion,
are, and have all the while been, citizens
of the United States, and az such, they
have the right 10 sue for tresspases as are
alleged in this case TO have been commit
ted Rebels have rights, and legal rights
and the plaintiff had right 10 bring his
suit. The army Of the United States, nor
its officers, had any right to seize household
furniture of the citizen, simply as such but
they had the right to take possession of any
thing that might be necessary to support
the army, or that the Rebels might use to
bellion, such as cotton, etc Has the plain
tiff ever been Invested of his title, by any
lawful proceeding under either of the confis-
cation acts Of the United States If not
then he is entitled to have his property, or
its equivalent restored to him. If the
property was regularly proceeded against
and condemned according to law, then he
has no such right of relief If the de-
PENDANT acted under a lawful order, law
fully given to him, in taking the property,
this would be sufficient justification of his
conduct. But If the officer from whom the
order emanated, had no lawful authority
TO issue it, then such order would be no
] justification 10 the defendant If the de-
PENDANT took the property, under such or.
| der, intending at the time, to hand it over
| to the government under the laws thereof,
| but afterwards converted it to his own use,
he would, IN that case, be liable. By act
of Congress, if property were taken by
order of the President, and that is proven
and traced back TO the President or any
officer authorized TO give it, the proof of
such an order would be a good defense.
| The defendant undertakes TO Justify, in
this case, under an order Of General S. p.
| Carter, Provost Marshal General of East
Tennessee. If Gen. Carter was United
States officer, in command of the depart
ment, the district or place, and this, to-
gether with the order, be proven by the
defendant, the defense is good one. If
the proof shows that the property vas
seized more than two years before the COM
mencement of this suit, and by such order
as above stated, the defendant would be
entitled 10 a verdict
Court adjournd till 10 o'clock Thursday
| morning