Knoxville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1875, 1870-10-26
IMPOHrAVT DECISION
or the Nuptemc Court of Tennc.See,


WILLIAM BRAZLEToN, 2tL
From the evidence in the cause, it ap.
pears that the parties were the owners of
adjoining farms near the town Of New
Market, in Jefferson county; that in the
month of December, 1868, Il force of rebel
soldiers, under the command of General
Vaughn, encamped for two or three days,
and cut timber upon the land of defendant
in error, and that in January, or February,
1854, brigade of rebel soldiers, under the
command Of General Longstreet, also en-
camped, for about three weeks, and cut
timber off said land; that the place OF en-
campment was a convenient one and had
been used, at different times by troops be-
longing to the Federal and rebel armies
that the land, consisting Of about ten acres,
was very valuable on account of the timber
growing upon it; that Of this, the Fede-
rails had destroyed about two and the rebels
SIX acres, leaving two acres standing. 1t
further appears that, on the second occa-
sion above mentioned, the rebels took some
eight acres of standing corn, six or eight
hogs, about two thousand pounds Of hay,
and about twenty dozen bundles of oats,
and converted them to their own use. This
suit was brought, by original attachment on
the l4th August, 1868. A declaration was
fled in trespass, according TO the form in
use before the Code and the nlaintitf in
error pleaded not guilty The principal
witnesses relied upon to connect him with
the soldiers aud with the trespass were
Nancy Daily, Margaret Daily and Rufus
BIazleton. The first Of these witnesses
stated that she saw Smith, the plaintiff in
error, and some officers riding along in front
of her door in New Market, going with
rebel soldiers towards the camp ground, in
January, or February, 1864 that the main
army was ahead and soldiers were in front
and rear Of him; that they went through
Smith S field and wood. and she saw fires,
thar night on Brazletons land, but did not
know whethec Smith wentwth the soldiers
into the timber. She stated, further, that
part Of the soldiers had turned off towards
the woods, before Smith got 10 the turning
OF place aud that most of the column were
ahead of him. Margaret Daley states that
she also saw him riding down the street
with some rebel officers, and saw the same
number of men and horses until they got
into the timber; that she saw him make no
signs, as they were passing along, and that
the soldiers were eucamped "all around IN
the country" Rufus Brazleton, sou of de-
fendant in error, states that the tents of the
officers were on Smith s. and the majn body
nj The troo6s on Brazletons land, and that
IN December, 1864, Smith was riding in
advance or some troops, and pointed up, IN
he direction OF the Jimber, and some OF
them went up there, at which time about
one half Of the remaining timber was cut
Witness stated. on cross examination, that
he di not see Smith with the troops there
m January, 1864, and that when he saw
him pointing with his hands, in December,
he heard HIM say no'hing; that he also
saw Smith point towards the hill be-
longing TO General BfaZ,et1h (not the
plaintiff and Baker, and that he did not
know that Smith ever said one word, to the
soldiers, about taking any Of his fathers
property. On re-eXaminatiOn, witness SAID
the soldiers camped, in December, on both
sides OF the road, in the direction Smith
had pointed. 1t was also. in proof that the
soldiers, in going to their place of encamp-
ment, passed over Smith field and part Of
his wood land and that, during that winter,
some of his timber was cut and his fences
burned William Hammond, witness for
defendant, who owned adjoining lands, tes-
titled that the Federal artillery Irst camped
upon the place in controversy, and on
Smiths land for about week, and burned
most of the fencing that it was then oc-
cupied by, what the witness denominates
the 100 days men and next by Kirk S com
mand, both ofthem Federal forces; then by
Gem Vaughn|s command, of the Rebel
forces, and by Auderson's brigade of Long
streets army. also Rebels; and that as
many as three or four thousand men Gu
camped there 1t was further stated, by
one witness that the plaintiff below was a
Union man,and defendant q rebel; which
evidence was objected to by the defendant,
but the objection overruled by the Court,
and exception taken by the defendant, to
This action of the Court. The charge of
the Court, to the jury was not excepted to,
and it is to be presumed that it was, in all
respects, correct Verdict and judgment
were rendered in favor Of defendant in er-
ror for $500, and costs, and the case is be-
fore us, upon appeal in the nature of awrit
Of erron' on the evidence alone, and upon
the exception, above stated, taken to evil
dence, and the objection made, in the pro
gress of the cause, to ANY evidence Of dt,
terent tTespasses from the uespasseS frs,
proven
Ehe declaration alleges in the first count,
that the defendant, on the first day 0f Jan.
nary 1864 and on divers other days and
times between that day, and before ,hat day
and the day of the c0mlnencement OF chi.
suit, with force and arms, &c., falled, ouI
down, and destroyed 600 oaks 900 pine
&., 81 the said plaintiff, &C. The -econ.
count alleges that "on the lsJ day Of Jan
nary, 1864, and divers other day, and 1u-
iJra and since that time, 10 Lle commence
mcnt lf lh suit, the daaudaut viii
force y8d arms, Ve. took and carried away
d M'1te.lfII- 0l' rgol OF lTeg. Nnlun tp