The Texas Republican. [volume] (Marshall, Tex.) 1849-1869, 1868-03-28

II sqlpas ~ tglasss Of IL
sotse rehssis4js - dopepsnens,
ISy Qb,ts B.ass nh, 10 - yeas
iiss1 is sdiss y - sAsisso.. 4
sAsvss: tssssss III bsaa sslIsstAl,s
issaaacss Of whelasols plunder ever
psrpstrassd with i.pssl.y snder =
fvsvsssDsss slaiaiae 70 - sivilissa.
Aoosg Tie sumsvoss victims Of tAsss
atrocities was MI. Henry WAR. II
New Orleans, At that time citizen
" tAis cosssy. n. wsrs Nd gath
ersd together duriss tie vss, BY
pareAass asa Legitimate trAds, lsrgs
sesesst u sotsos, sebneiss il ~
ssgrsssss stsst o. perhaps ovss,
5000 hslss. Mr.. Ware, unliks many
otAsu. w. nss dispsssd to ssbnis 10
b dsspeilsa With impssity, and 70.
fasisg eli cenprossis, punoca Ah
Issai rixhw 70 The cad. We arr
gradlsd 10 notice that he has recent.
y oetsiss6 nst only . verdict il his
fsves, brit hes brought oss in bold
rslisf And sxpessd, il Tie fall glare
Il midday, sous Of tho vils thieves,
whose eosduct hers were subjects Of
eonnos notorissy.
The case wss decided in the Fourth
District Of New Orleans, and is thus
stated BY judge Thesrd, ia his De.
sisios
Hssry Ware ". Bsrbsidgs ct 81.
No. II, $40. This salt osigisstss In
~ following facts The plais.iG in
The asss. Of 1855, wss lhc owner Of
7b6 hsles Of Gotten, ON storage in
warshsssss 10 Shreveport. On the
- Of Dscsabsr, 1856, The defendant
Cursis deprived hin Of the possession
and control {. this property and
caussa il " bs sent to New Orleans
IN January, 1866, to the defendant
Burbridgs, who placed il in the cus.
tody Of the defendants jerome Brad.
lay 1 Co. Those persons detained
it ustil The 18th Of March, 1866,
when they agreed 10 surrender il to
the plaiatiA - the owner.
The facts Of the surrender are,
that b66 bslss~ Of the same cotton
were returned, but spoiled Of por-
tion Of their contents Of the re-
maindcr, 200 other bales and parts
Of bales of cotton, Of an inferior quail.
ity, snd Of les weight, wore deliver
ID. Three bales were not accountcd
for in any manner,
The defendants justify their con
duet BY Affirming that Burbridgc was
the Supervising Agent Of the Treas.
ury Of the United States for Louisi.
ana, under the acts Of Congress Of
the Sd March, 1868, and "a July,
1894, relative to captured and aband.
oned property that Curtis was his
assistant, and jerome Bradley l. Co,
were warehouseme1 In his employ
ment ahat Curtis received informa.
ton 10 1865, that the plaintiff had
10 his possession 80 or 40 bales Of
Confederate cotton, and owed the
Confederate States Is bales under
their law imposing taxes in kind
that 10 ascsstaia and collect this claim
The 7b8 baIss Of the pl.iatiG were
ss:ssd ed ssnt to New Orleans by
order Of Bsrbridgs "for adjudica.
tion," aad that they wsrs dstsined
!. for this inquiry till the surrender in
March. They asy they had reason
able cause for the ssisuvs. There
was no question made or dcubt sug-
gcsted on the trial ~ to the sufisiency
Of the title Of the plaintiff. The tes :.
tinony shows, that he was the owner
Of the cotton under valid titles and
was In possessioa. y
The plaisiiG sued out writ Of
his property. The SHeriK executed
The writ, but BY the iaausacs Of Cur
tis, . provost guard disposscssed him
aud tAs property was rsnt to New
Orlssss uadsr this order Of Bar.
bridge.
The villaiay Of this affair il morn
faIly q posed ~ The Judge proceeds
10 The rsvisw:
Tia wrosg 10 still more aggravated
who's u sPpsass that one Of tho lately
ss.asiPaisd slaves Of the plaistil
vas seapsllsd By he fear Of dssth,
ssd ssdussd b. the proHer Of bribe,
70 svssr falssly to tho matter upes
which this trsspass was made.
4 This aiidavit was probably pro.
earsdby agests Of Curtis, taken be-
fro . Provost Marshal---was held
and S.sd BY Carts and Burbrides,
and 10 The osly sAdavit distinctly
proved 70 the court.
The sasae. 70, the seisrre appeav
% b without support, and the mature
aad s1esnt ~ the ssisurs exhibit op.
preston ssa isjussics
Thsss il evidence in the case Of
e6srs BY agsnts and AaLissrs Of this
cotton agsncy Of volunteering to pur.
chase this cotton because ofits peril,
and procure it, release, il large con /.
singent fees were promised 70 be paid
to them. The suspicion that the
peril was superindscsd merely for
tho parposs Of obtaining such id =.
vsntsgss, is BY no means groundless.
II accounts, perhaps, better than any
other theory, for the seizure Of the
75s bales, when only Afty Ave wsrc
dispstod, and the seizure of those
upon fslss and perured testimony
and ,ss groandless prctcxt.
And sesis:
| The plaintiff vas il the condition
Of msn who had bscu deprived Of
oil sccsas to the courts. Tho State
courts had been resisted and not At
aasgAt. Ihs Military Com nandsr
Of IL Dspartnsal.ia this case, had
declared tAas hs would resist any
legal process from any court The
III dsfssdast held his property,
sad Uesld pol yisld II o. any other
tssas tAsa thess they imposed.
Il this closes
fhs eAly rsnsiaiag question is
that Conserving damages. The case
y . very gross one Of IN attsnpt, In
the Int Instance. 70 effort money
under 1cticious prstspcss Of claims
eAcially nsds, and sapportsd B. IN
~ Of arbitrary asd sslisssssd pow