The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-05-31
U. s. CIRCUIT COURT -CHIEF JUSTICE
s. p. CHASE, PRESIDING.

bar, they shall have leave to enter up judg-
ment thereon, subject to the plea of plene dd-
7ainistraUH: and that the issues under said
plea be referred to Martin L. Wilkins, ais spe-
cial referee, to act as master in chancery, to
take the account Of the said executors accord
ing to the principles of this court under said
plea Of ptene adainistraoU, in which account
the executors shall not be charged with the
value Of any negroes, whether in the invento-
ry or not, who have not been converted into
money or any other personal property which
can be proved to have been taken, lost or de-
stroyed by the armed forces of the United
States, Or other unavoidable casualty, and that
the said referee may report to the court every
fact deemed important by either party.
Chief Justice Chase then delivered the fol-
lowing opinion Of the court:
CIRCUIT CoURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CARoLINA-CARoL1NE A.
JOHNSON AND JOHN A.. JOHNSON, TRUSTEES, vs.
JOHN RICHARDSON, ADMINISTRATOR OF MARY
RICHARDSON.
The only question raised by the plea in this
case is one Of jurisdiction.
the defendant, as administrator Of Mary
Richardson, deceased, decree in favor Of
Caroline A. johnson for her distributive share
Of an estate, which it is alleged has been COL
Of sum of money due from the intestate.
The defendant is citizen Of Georgia, but
derives his authority as administrator from
the grant of letters Of administration, by
plaintiffs are citizens OF South Carolina.
The relief sought is against the defendant
in the capacity of administrator. and the plea
set sets up the fact that the defendant is admins
traitor under the grant of one of the States
and bound by the law of the State to account
as such for his administration of the estate of
the deceased, in the courts Of the State, as
bar to the prosecution Of any suit against him
IN the courts of the United States.
There has been much controversy and no
little diversity Of judgment on the question
thus presented both at the bar and on the
bench, and the decisions are by no means har-
monious. Fortunately, we are spared the labor
OF examining the question upon principle, by
the authority Of q very recent decision Of the
Supreme Court Of the United States.
In the case Of Payne Va. Hook, not yet re-
brought her suit in equity in the Circuit Court
for the District OF Missouri, against Zaddock
Hook; citizen of Missouri. and public ad-
his sureties on his official bond, for her dlstri-
butive share Of the estate. A demurrer was
was filed to the bill, and was sustained by the
Circuit Court, and the bill was dismissed.
The case was taken by appeal to the Supre me
Court.
1t win be seen from thie statement that the
very question now before US was then brought
before the Supreme Court. The court upon
full argument held that the suit was properly
brought, and reversed the decree of the Cir
Quit Court. This authority is decisive, and the
plea must be ove1ruied.
Mr.. j. j. Pope. solicitor for complainant,
made the following motion, which was granted:
The plea fled in the above case by the de-
dendant, John Richardson, administrator,
6aving been oyerruled, 1T is ordered that the
defendant do file his answer to the above bill.
on or before the rules day in July next, upon
payment OF the costs Of this term.
Alexander Mcleod vs.. T. G. Calicott. j. B.
Campbell, Esq, appeared for plaintiff; d. T.
Corbin, United States District Attorney, for de-
fendant.
This was case for trial by the jury, and an
action Of trover for the recovery OF thirty-nine
bales Of cotton, alleged by counsel for plaintiff
to have been wrongtully taken from the possess
sion OF DR.. A. Mcleod, of Marlboro District by
Mr.. T. @. Calicott, citizen OF New York, and
that the property so taken was wrongfully
converted by defendant to his own use, and
that without probable cause, right or color Of
law.
Counsel for plaintiff introduced testimony to
show that DR.. Mcleod raised the cotton, was
subjected after the to an onerous trial by the
Provost Court Of Marlboro District, acquitted,
and the cotton ordered to be released. That
after this. Mr.. Calicott, being fully advised OF
what had occurred, selzed the cotton at the de-
pot OF the Northeastern Railroad Company,
notwithstanding the factor (Mr. L. D. Mowry)
went to him, represented the circumstances OF
the case, and asked it's release to him, Offering
to give security, to be approved by MIR. Cali
colt, If he or the Government of the United
States or any one represented by them should
esta biish any just claim to it. Mr. Calicott re-
tanned the cotton, and an application was
made to the Secretary Of the Treasury at
Washington, and upon statement of the
facts he ordered it's discharge. Counsel for
plaintiff advised their client at the time not to
comply with the conditions required by the
Secretary Of the Treasury requiring him (Dr.
McLeod) to state there was probable cause for
the seizure of his cotton, and Mr.. Cslicott re-
quired, in addition TO that, bond to indem-
nifty himself against damages, &c.
On the part OF the defendant, testimony was
introduced to show that Mr.. Calicott was spe-
cial supervising agent Of the Treasury Depart
ment and received this cotton under the pro-
visions OF the act OF Congress Of the 12th Of
March, 1868. relative to captured and abandon
ed property; that he took it under color Of that
act, received it and transmitted it according to
the direction Of the Secretary OF the Treasury
to Simeon Draper. the proper special agent at
New York, for sale. Testimony was introduc.
ed to show that the cotton was not DR..
McLeods; that large portion OF it was sold to
the Confederate States Government in 1863
that he had no right to retain it;that he had it
repacked and remarked and forwarded to
Charleston.
Counsel introduced certified official report
Of MIR. Calicctt to the department at Washing
ton on the subject, which report was required
to be made under the act, and that MIR. Cali
colt acted in good faith and under strict in
structions Of the Treasury Department: also
that the Provost Court had no jurisdiction
over this cotton.
1he hearing Of the testimony occupied the
attention OF the court up to three O'Clock, when
the further hearing OF the case was postponed
to ten o'clock this morning.