The Portland daily press., 1869-10-08
Portland and Vicinity


Novelties of the Season-Davis s. Co.
United states mmissioncr,s Court.
WIN. H. CLIFFORD, ESQ.,, COMMISSIONER.
THHRsDAY.-John Waterhouse, master. an,
Cleveland Downcs, mate. of brig Merriwa. of Port
land, for refusing to rescue from drowning Jane
Fitzgerald on Portland Light on or about the FIRST
Apfii 'as'' on an outward voyage to Cuba, wer
IN tne sum OF $4,000 each for trial at tn
ms0enper Term OF the United States District Court
They readily found sureties.
~, =. iaiDot' VIM. L. Putnam.
Inc United States v. Mary A. Whitney.
ms was complaint made on behalf of the
united States, against the defendant for present.
Ing to the Pension Bureau of the Treasury De.
partment, false claim for pension on the
ground that she was dependent, in whole or in
part, for support upon her son William ]. Whit
ney, who was killed in battle in the military
vice of the United States, May 5th, 1864. The
government charged that Mrs. Whitney was not
dependent at all upon her deceased son for sum
port, hut was supported by her husband, Urel
Whitney, who is and was possessed of property
to the amount of 1000 or 5000, unincumbered
To show the presenting of the claim
DR.. A. n. SPARES, was produced by the Dis.
trict Attorney who testified That he was clerk
in the Pension Office, that certain papers which
he produced and identified, to wit, the original
application for pension, and til rec afidayits
which were taken to support it were taken by
him from the files of the Pension office, and that
they had been received and filed in the office,
On cross-eXamination, the witness stated that
his special department was the department of
bounty lands, that he had no personal connection
with pension cases, and that he Only knew those
papers had been in the Pension office by the seal
OF the Pension office upon them, by the endorse
meht upon them, and by the fact that they were
in such an endorsed label as he knows to be used
in all pension cases.
Charles Humphrey testified, that he lived in
Yarmouth. had known Urie Whitney and his
wife for SO years and the farm in North Var
mouth where they had always lived. He had
seen the farm more or less every wear. IT,
was worth from $500 to $1,000, and its annual
product is from $500 to $500. The maintenance
of such family as Mr.. Whitney's would cost
$3.50 to $500, exclusive of house rent. On cross
examination, witness said he had not been on the
farm for 80 years. But seen it often from the
road, saw it last winter. Only knows its value
from general reputation.
Jacob S~eetsir, lives 100 rods from Uriel Whit
ney's His family consists of his wife, and one
unmarried daughter. His other children are of
age and live in Portland. The son who went to
war was 16 or II years old. He worked on the
place like other boys Worked some and PLAYED
some. Igot considerable work from my bows of
this age. Whitney's farm is about rs acres,
tillage, pasture and woods. Cuts about IS tons of
hay He Kept in 1865 cows, yoke of oxen.
horse and two swine. Farm think worth $4,000.
House in good repair, two stories high, and well
painted, think it is finished throughout. Might
have cost 5000 or $500. Barn not so old. cost
$500. Know that Whitney has been a manu-
facturer of elderberry wine, has made two barrels
OF it. Sold it for 81 per quart. Cross-examined;
mad son who enlisted. did not make an an.
plication for a pension in his behalf. Whitney
does not work much himself. he does marketing
and helps in haying; his house is worth $500,
his barn 5000, his land $25 per acre. Recalled
by the District Attorney, witness stated, that at
the church meeting Mr.. Whitney stated that his
farm was worth $4,000.
Cross-examined further, he said that the mat.
ter of obtaining the pension had been taken I'D
by the Pownal Congregational Church, to which
Whitney belonged, and the minister, Mr. Nichols,
called on Mr.. Whitney to make statement. In
that statement.he also said he was sick and un-
able to labor much.
Charles L. Loring, testified that the value of
Whitney's farm was from $4,000 to $780, Whit
ney's family could be maintained for $500 or
$ioo. Do not know the income of the farm,
During the years before his son went to the
war his son worked on his farm and went to |
school winters. Do not know of his being hired |
out.
Asa S,ceefser, lives near Uriel Whitney. Think |
the product of his farm was more than enough |
to maintain his family. Know that Whitney |
said he would not swap wood lot with man |
whose wood lot was worth $500. Whitney told |
me he sold $50 of elderberry wine.
Daniel Mitchell was put on the stand but his
evidence was not material.
ID. I'll. Drummond Esq, testified that he drew
up the application and afidavits in the presence
of Whitney and his wife upon statements made
by the former, and that they were sent by him
to the Pension Office
Geo. f. Emery, Esq, appeared for the defence. |
After putting in the title deeds of Whiney's farm
and two wood lots, called Reuben Hoyt the |
brother of Mrs. Whitney, who testified, that the |
wood lot in New Gloucester was owned by him
and his brother-in-law together and was worth
about $3.50; that they had taken from it wood
which paid them about $40. Mr.. Whitney was
not well and could not stand work. They have
a daughter at home out of health. Mrs. Whit
ney has had good deal of trouble and is not
well. Think her sons labor for the years be-
fore he went to war was worth $12 per month.
Mrs. Field, a married daughter testified to the
ill health of her parents, and the work of their
son.
Ur7el Whitney, then at the request of is coun-
sci and without objection, gave detailed sketch
of his life, including part of that of his father
who was soldier in the revolution. He stated
infinitely the fails and hurts he had received, and
the debiitated state of his health. He told about
his wife's disabilities, and the story of his sons
volunteering and service in the war. He admit.
ted that the value of his farm was $4,000, that he
had for 1868 25tons of hay and the stock as tes-
titled to by the government witnesses. He said
he applied for this pension for his wife at the
suggestion and upon circular of his attorney,
Messrs. Emery & Drummond, that he told them
about his farm but no questions were asked about
his other property, that he did not intend to con-
ceal anything or to claim a pension If he was
not entitled to it, that there had been much COM
plant about his pension and many exaggerated |
statements about what he had sworn to.
The counsel for the defence in his argument |
held that
The allegation in the declaration to the effect |
that she was partially dependent on her soldier |
son was true both in point of law and fact.
If false she believed them to be true, and
therefore did not knowingly make false oath
or claim.
The proofs in support the claim were true.
IF false her husband, and not she procured
them, and for this reason alone she cannot be
held to answer the charge. 1
The ca Sc is not concluded.
Superior Court. t.s
CIVIL TERM-GODDARD, j., PRESIDING.
THuRspAY.-As there was nothing in readiness
for the jury Court adjourned until Friday morning,
at o'clock.
The following assignments have been made for