The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-10-27

set Aside and the Process OF Attachment set
Aside and DISCHARGED.
Before Judge Nelson.
fhe United states rs. Vernon X. Sterenso.-In this
case Judge Nelson has rendered his deoision as io
lows N#tA *~
This is o writ OF error to the United States District
Court Tor the southern district OF New York. The
suit Ia an action VI trover brought b the I'M Ell
STATES against stevenson to recover tho value OF .
large quantity OF cotton. which, IL Is alleged, be-
ionged TO the plaintiff, and had been converted by
the defendant to his own use. Tue cause was tried
before jury, and on the trial. ~ appearec that the
defendant, being resident and crizen OF Tennessee
when tue recent civil war broke out, renamed IN
the state aud took part with the nsurgent states;
and was the President OF the Nashville and CaatIa-
and that while thus engaged ne bought cotton
within these states. and shipped 1t with
H the knowledge ana assent 9 q Inc sOSaIIsd
TO foreign ports Ia violation of the United
States blockade II also appears that as the
removed cotton that he had bought and cotton also
that belonged TO others, further the interior, TO
prevent the same from being captured BY the forces
OF the United Sates There Is no proof In the case
tnat any part OF the cotton was ever In the posses
SION OF the United States or that they ever had any
called Confederate states: but on The contrary that
1t was purchased In the Confederate States oy the
defendant and shipped by hun abroad III violation of
the existing blockade and sold or sold within The
said States. the Court below, at the close OF the
testimony, being OF opinion that no case was made
on part Vi ulTecteu
the defendant. The act OF July ID 1881, section 3.
made 1t lawful for the President OF the United states
where state OF insnrreoon existed TO deciars Is oy
proclamation, and thereupon all commercial inter
course by and between the same and the citizens
thereof and the citizens OF the rest OF the United states
should cease and be unlawful, &C., aud the goods
&C., coming from said state or sectlon into other
parts OF the United States &C, should be forfeited t.
the United States. az y. s., l.255.) The act sup
8. coners on the Secretary OF the Treasury the
power upon satisfactory grounds OF be iei that tine
session under the control OF the insurgents IN oil
cases where he may deem 1t expedient TO do 80, to
require security that they will not be carried to such
place, nor used TO give aid or comfort to the nsur-
gents and transportation In violation OF the act or
OF the regulation Will work forfeiture. The act OF
AUGUST .; 1851 ib D. $40. section u, provides thas
during the insnrrection. goods purchased or sold
with intent to use or employ the same. &c.. In aid
ing or promoting the insurrecon, shall be subject
OF prize and capture. ana 1t Is made The duty OF the
President TO cause the same to be seized and con-
1scated The act OF nth OF July, 1862 a. TO-, sol,
section o. makes the property OF persons engaged In
the rebellion, who Will not return to their duty IN
sixty days after warning by proclamation
OF the President subject to SEIZURE, and It Is
made the duty OF the President TO sel1e, &C.
The only remaining act that it Is materalto refer 10
Is that Of March 3, 1853, section p. p. 820 whlch
authorizes the appointment OF agents to collect cap
tured ana abandoned property. We need hardly say
that neither OF THESE statutes, nor any provision IN
them, have any bearing on the facts as disclosed 10
the case, or afford any ground for an inference
conclusion that the cotton in question, sold and con-
vered to his own use by the defendant. belonged 10
the United States Certainly not, unless all the pro
perry OF citizens or leople In the Confederate states
belonged to the United States during the war Iaere
Is another branch OF this case that furnishes per-
haps the grounds Tor Its original Institution WHICH,
as has turnea out IN proof, has utterly failed. lie
original IN ormation, rs 1t Is called, went 10
ground that the defendant had iraudulenSy Goa.
verfed the cotton 10 MS own use, and that the pro-
ceeds were disposed Of with intent to secrete the
same and delraud the government; ana prayed
perry OF the defendant; whereupol pro-
cess OF attachment issued ana large
amount OF real and personal estate was attached,
and still remains uDder the sad process Tue
affidavit upon which this process was issued is re-
when compared with the facts OF the case
as proved before The Jury. the alant states tha lie
was the person wuo filed the Information against
the defendant which was on the lTta December,
1866; that 1000 bales of the cotton or thereabous,
being In the states oil Georgia, Alabama and ten
nessee were tue property OF the Confederate states
when the defendant took possession OF IL, ana that
In the summer Of 1855 he transported The TO the
city OF New YORK, within the Southern district OF tae
same to be sold and disposed OF at this clty, und
eS ant Gg'f1 % .ooouo5 or thereooats che
defendant received and has converted tGe same INTO
Tea or eshe N inc II cy S e cotton
nsurrectionary States In violation OF the proclama-
ton OF the President OF the 18th of August 1891, and
OF The acts OF Congress reierriug to Them aud tnat
1t was the property OF the United States. 10 was
upon this AFFIDAVIT that the process of attachment
issued, and seems to have been IN some way re-
garded as a seizure, not OF the cotton gu: OF the
real and personal estate OF the defendant as suo
sute for the same, and yet the case has been tried
sonance The case as tried In tue court below, and
rs ruled by the learned Judge. ~ very simple and
pam one; and, in every aspect In which 1t has beea
on the testimony can lead to put 0nere
suit. and that Is that the United States showed
tltle to tue properly the possession OF which was
dispensase to maintain this ton. And as 1t Is
shown that the AFFIDAVIT on which the process Of At
issued was wholly uDtrue and false ms
taken. the process OF attachment must be act ASIDE
aud discharged. Instea Of the cotton Deonging to
the Confederate States IT belonged to the defendant;
and instead OF being shipped 80 New YORK IN VIOLA
ton or the acts of Congress II was shipped from q
confederate port 70 foreign country In violation OF
the blockade OF the port OF Wilmington; but TINS
fact could not change the title OF the property or
work forfeiture OF the same to the United States
unless seized as prize or war.
The judgment below affirmed and the process of
attachment set aside and discharged.
Alleged Forgery.
72e United States Us. James Besnadr.-The defend
ant who belongs to the permanent part OF the regu
lar army, ~ charged with attempting to pass an
alleged forged check. The case having been called,
counsel Tor the prosecution moved Its adjournment
for "a few DAYS on the ground OF newly discovered
evidence, and that 1t was 10 nave The
timony OF the paymaster, who was AT present In
Buffalo.
Counsel for the defence resisted the application on
the ground that the accused who was scarcely aoe
to understand word OF English, had already been
SIX months In Ludlow street jan and TINS was the
frat time that he had got hearing.
Judge Benedict adjourned the case TIL Saturday
next
Charges Against Post Once Clerks.
Jhe CEtte1 StugsS ". tFbiTteS BeS ana A. u kelIg
The defendants were separately charged with open.
ing letters containing articles OF value.
Roth prisoners having pleaded guilty they were
remanded for sentence.
Non-Attcndance Of the Grand Jury.
Assistant District Attorney Purdy called the aren-
ton OF the CoGrt TO the nonattendancc OF o sum-
cent number OF the Grand Jury, and asked the
Court 10 order an additional pane OF i've or six.
Judge Benedict granted the application.
uETED STATES CeRMSSDssaY COURT.
Charge Against Broker.
Before Commissioner Shields.
The Unftea SAFES u.s. John @. Chrgstt.-The de-
PENDANT was charged with carrying on the busiao,s
OF br0xer nj No 5ik Pine street without pnying tia