Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1869-10-16

A HoHsE CASE. -On Monday aud Tuesday
asst, an interesting horse case was tried before
Judge Chapman, IN the Circuit Court. The
case was that Of Briggs rs. Forbes, action Of
,ictinue, for a horse. Jas. NJ Briggs claimed
the horse as his and John VI. Forbes showed
ttie to the horse, If the same horse lost by
Briggs, ia che manner indicated hereafter, and
also introduced very strong testimony 10 show
that the horse now held By him lForbes) was
not the horse formerly held by Briggs
The defendant proved that he had purchased
The horse in 1865, from person who had pur
chased him from one who had traded for him
with commissioned officer ot General Sher
mans army in Priucc William county in 1865,
when that army was on its march from North
Carolina to Washington city. On the trial the
letendants counsel asked the court 10 instruct
the lury aS follows, which was granted
I. lt the jury believe from the evidence that
the horse IN the declaration mentioned was in
1866, owned by the plaintiff, and that the
plaintiff was a citizen OF the State OF Virginia,
which was al war with the United States, the
Court iuStrUcts the Jury that the said horse
was subject Of lawful capture during the
war by the army OF the United States. Aud
Il they believe from the evidence that the
horse in the declaration mentioned, was so
CAPTURED By the army Of the United States,
uriEg the war and that the defendant has de-
tived his tide or possession from commlS-
stoned officer OF the United States in whose
possession said horse was By virtue of such
capture, then the jury should find for the de-
ieudant.
-. Horses constitute part of the equipments Of
an army, and when found in the possession OF
commissioned officer, serving in regularly
organized army, and being used therein by
Il bo oI ct
equipment Of said army until tho contrary is
made TO appear And if the jury believe from
the evidence that the horse now sued for, was
in tho possession and use OF the army of the
United States, during the late war; and while
in such possession and use in said army, by
such officer, was sold or exchanged by said
officer 10 the person through whom the defen
dant claims title, then the title 50 acquired by
the defendant is good, and the jury must find
accordingly.
Which instructions the Court gave, and the
Jury found a verdict for the defendant.
The following military instructions were also
made evidence in the case:
HEADERS. MILITARY COMMISSION,
10TH DINIsGoN OF Va.
ALEXANDRIA, Va, March II, 1865.
Hoa H. w. 7homdS, Judge u Circuit t0ut
FairfLc e. H. Id.
SrR:-Iu reply to your letter of the 18th
inst, have the honor TO state that the deciS-
ION of General Schofed in relation to said sub
ect, is to be decided by the following priu-
cjples:
|. Military possession aud use in time OF
war. must be regarded as conclusive evidence
Of the title in the government o. which is cap
tured from the belligerent army No niiyid-
ua title can be set up in opposition to this mlI-
itarv title.
H. All property in the possession OF the
Confederate Government OF army, at the time
of the surrender of the latter became the pro
pertv OF the Uuitcd States.
ILL., Under existing military orders, horses
anu other property belonging the United States
which wGyc taken up as estray within the the
atre Of military operations, or, which were
gwen or loaned TO citizens toy officers OF the
army, remain the property OF the person who
thus acquired possession, until called Tor by an
authorized officer OF the L. :.
~. 1t uroperty acquired as above as mas heeh
transferred or given to third party the tlte
nltbat third party Is good against all claimants
except the u. 5.
Very respectfully, your obi seT7t',
Rrevet Lieut.. Col. 4, 5, ~, Nil. Com 10th
Div. Va. t r.o
The above ia true copy. as taken from from 'nc
hooks 10 my office. JOHN ~ iICrs,
Can't. L. :. Army, Military Commissloner.
The case was argued by }. L. GoorlcE ana
John s. Berry. for plaiutift and y. l. forosS
and John l.. Marye, jr, for the deien''.
Falcra ESlIUG LsiHr.