American citizen. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1864-1890, 1869-07-17

Decisions Of the High Court of Errors
and Appeals.
APRIL TERM, 1869.
William III. Oassell

William II. oasselI
VS..
Jacob Bachrach.
Judge Jeffords delivered the opin-
ion of the court.
Writ of error to the circuit court
of Madison county.
The declaration in this case con-
tains two counts. The first is in
trespass and alleges that Cassell,
the defendant below, OH the 9th day
of June, 1865, with force and arms
broke and entered the close of one
A. FL. Dinkins, in Police District
number three, in Madison county,
and took and carried away from said
close, two bales of cotton belonging
to the plaintiff, Jacob Bachrach, the
same being OF the value of five hun
dred dollars and to the damage of
the plaintiff in the sum of one thous-
and dollars. The second count is in
trover and alleges that on the 9th
day of June, 1865, the defendant
wrongfully converted to his own use
two bales of cotton belonging to the
plaintiff to the damage of the plain
tiff i'm the sum of one thousand dol
lars. Cassell, the defendant below
pleaded the general issue, defending
the wrong and injury &C., and CIV
ing notice that under his plea OF the
general issue he would offer in evil
tlence on his part, that at tax sale
regularly conducted by the COnfed-
crate State government tax collector
for nOn-payment of certain taxes due
the Confederate States government
by said BachIach, on certain, cotton
of which these two bales of cotton
were part, he the said Cassell pur-
chased the said two bales at said
sale, and paid for the same, lie being
the highest and best bidder for the
said two bales of cotton, and that
said sale took place on or about the
18th day of June, 1854. The de-
fendant also gave notice of set of
and accord and satisfaction. The
cause was submitted to jury and
they returned a verdict in favor OF
the plaintiff for the sum of one hun
dred and fifty dollars and ninety
cents, and thereupou, the defendant
below moved for a new trial for the
reasons stated IN the record, and the
motion having been considered by
the court, said motion was overruled
and judgment rendered OH the yer.
dict in favor of the plaintiff, to which
ruling and action Of the court, the
defendant excepted, and rendered
his bill of exceptions. To reverse
which Judgment this writ of error is
now prosecuted. On the Trial of thi.
case in the circuit court the follow
ing instructions were requested and
given for the plaintiff.
LIST. "The court instructs the jury
that the sale by Gould to Cassell
conferred on Cassell no title to thu
cotton in controversy, unless sale
sale was subsequently ratified by
plaintiff or his agent, Gazan"
I'd. "The sale by Gould to Cas-
sell as one then acting as an Officer
of the Confederate government con
terred upon CaSsell no title to til,
cotton in question:" &c
The giving of these instructions
and refusal of the court to grant {
new trial are assigned for error, Th,
official character of Gould as tn,
regular authorized tax collector fol
the Confederate States government
does not seem to have been denied
or questioned at the trial, nor was any
objection raised as to the regularity
of the sale made by Gould as sucl
tax collector. 1t is assG rted and moi
denied that the sale took rlace il
June, 1864, while the Contederac,
remained intact, and its authorit,
and power irresistible in the greater
portion of the State of Mississippi
The proof shows that the sale was o
two particular bales of cotton, de
signated by number, that the pur
chase money was paid in full by tn,
purchaser at the date of the sale
Nothing further remained to he don,
by either party in order to confer /;
perfect and complete title to tn,
property sold on the vendee. A
between the vendor and vendee thi
transaction was fully executed an,
closed, and the Tighrs of the partie
irrevocably fixed, when the purchas,
money was paid. 1t can make II,
difference that the vendee above,
the cotton to remain at the plac
where lie bought it as by leaving i
there it remained entirely at his owl
risk and in contemplation of law wa
in his constructive or actual posses
sion from the date of the sale. 1t il
alleged by the plaintiff below tina
the defendant below, when he re
moved the cotton which he bought
took one wrong bale, but there is n,
legal proof on this point whatever il
, the case. In the absence of proof
, we are bound to presume that he re
, moved the precise two bales of cot
ton which he purchased, as the Law
: never presumes the commission of
trespass or wrong.
1t is a conceded fact that BachracI
! and Cassell we're residents within
and adherents to the Confederat
States government during the con
. tinuance of the late rebellion. Bach
rach now however that he has playe'
and lost insists that the COnfederac
never was a government at all, no
even so far as its own subjec s an,
adherents were concerned and as
, necessary legal consequence neve
. had any authority to impose an
collect taxes from its own citizens.
, The question at once arises: VIVA
l was this so-called Confederate State
government Was it in all respect
E and for all purposes a disorganize
mass, disorderly and irresponsible
mob? Or rather was it not for Gel
S tain purposes and with reference t
5 certain persons aud parties a govern
ment in fact for the time being?
< We are well aware that in respeC
D to the United States government
2 and its legal citizens, this is now IL
a longer a question open for discussion
2 1t is now fully and finally settled b
every department of Federal govern
!, ment beyond all future controversy
!. that in relation to the United States