Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-10-19
SUPREME COURT OPINIONS.
September Term - Knoxville,
~ 1870.
Joseph H. HeiskeII, Attorney Gen.
erai and Reporter.
Emelino Hart VS.. william s. Reynolds an

Emeline Hart vs.. William s. Reynolds and
others.
Notice Of special matters of defense under the
Code, 29l3-2,9l7, should be as certain as special
plea under sec 2,9l6. Notice Of justification In
trespass for Selling property, is defective II II
does not specify the property taken, describe
the authority under which the defendant acted
to inform the plaintiff Of the real nature of the
defense
1t is error to permit the defendant to prove the
"disloyalty" Of the plaintiff in q civil action fol-
trespass in taking goods,
If the political status of party is to be proved
1t must be done by acts and declarations, not by
hearsay or reputation.
Under the act of Congress approved March IL
1868, authorizing The Secretary Of the Treasury
TO appoint agents u collect abandoned property,
the right to receive and collect abandoned pro-
perty does not depend up the loyalty or dds
loyalty" of the owner. That became a question
only upon application to the government to re-
store the proceeds
Property was not subject to seizure as sban-
doned, unless the owner was engaged in rebellion,
either in arms or otherwise, or gave aid and COM
fort TO those engaged
Property left In the care of another person, un-
der colorado sale, by one publicly residing in
an adjoining county, visiting the place where the
property was, and not in arms or encouraging the
rebellion, is not abandoned.
sale for the purpose of preventing the gov
eminent from Selling property is not as "aban
donment."
person seizing property as agent of the gov
eminent could not justify under proof of prOba-
BILE cause to suspect that it was abandoned.
A subsequent statute may be looked TO in ascer'
tanning the meaning of terms used in q former
one, even in their application to acts happening
between the dates Of the statutes
Trespass in the Circuit Court of Camp
bell county. Hon. L. c. Houk, Judge,
presiding.
E. c. Camp, U. S. District Attorney,
for the plaintiff, submitted a printed ar
gument, referred to in the opinion.
L. A. Gratz, for defendant.
OPINION.
This is an action of tort, brought blythe
plaintiff against the ten defendants named
in the record, under the Code, section 2,
746, for the wrongful taking of one bu.
reau, one press, one bedstead, one trunk,
one side saddle, and various other articles
of personal property. The declaration
was filed in accordance with form No. Is
section 1889. The defendants severallJ
pleaded not guilty; and the defendant
William S. Reynolds, in addition to hi
plea of not guilty, gave notice, ''to the
plaintiffs Attorney that, on the trial, ht
would insist
l. That he did not take the several ar.
ticles of personal property mentioned il
the declaration; and
Q. That whatever articles he did take
were taken into his possession by author
ity, duly vested in him, as the special as
sistant agent of the Treasury Department
of the United States, and to and for tn,
| use of the Government of the United
States. 1t appears from the record, tina
st April Term, 1867, demurrer was sus
tanned to the plea and notice of William
| S. Reynolds, and leave granted to amend
| aud TO plead over but no demurrer is Sc
out. At the August Term, 1867, thu
plaintiff moved that the said notice o.
defence attached to the plea of William
| S. REYNOLDS. should be stricken out as in
sufficient, but the court overruled the mo
ton.
1t appears, in evidence, that the plain
tiff was the owner of the property men
toned IN the declaration; that she resided
in Anderson county before and until thu
month of September, 1868; that, in con
sequence of threats made against her, anC
"somc people cutting her house partly
down, on the previous night, she re
moved, about twenty miles distant, Il
Campbell county; that she did not Temov,
secretly, but "tOld any one that aske(
her where she was going" that she re
sided, openly and publicly, in the county
| to which she removed, and occasionally
visited her former residence; that, befor,
she changed her domicil, she made wha
the witnesses call ga sham sale" of tn,
property sued for, to one James Hale, fo
the purpose of preventing her propert,
! from being taken or destroyed, but will
the understanding that she was to have i
back whenever she returned, anC
that Hale was to keep it for her until sh
wanted 1t. Hale, who was examined a
a witness for the defendants, states tina
he did not claim the property at any time
that he never paid anything, and tina
plaintiff returned the note which he ex
ecuted for the property.
1t further appears that the plaintiff
never took up arms against the Unitet
States; but there is some conflict in th
testimony as TO her political opinions
One witness states that paintif had tn
reputation of being 'disloyal;" another
that she was "a rebel by report, and tba
he saw her shout and clap her hands whel
Wheeler's raid passed along, in August
1864. but did not know ''what she CLAP
ned and shouted for" On the contrary
three witnesses, one of whom lived will
the plaintiff, state they were well &C
ouainted with her, and never knew he
to do any act giving aid, comfort, or er
couragement to the rebellion.
1t further appears that the defendant
VIM. S. Reynolds, claiming to hav
authority from the Agency Aid, at Knox
vile, Tenn, of the United States Treasur
Department, to take possession of a
abandoned Rebel property in Anderso
county, seized the property in controversy
and sold it at public sale, about the mont
of June, 1864; that he and one Kesli
conducted the sale; that his co-defendan'
became purchasers of the property; an
that on the day of sale, and before its IT
moYsl, the plaintiff appeared in pcrso
and forbade the purchasers to remove Ii
property, and stated that they would hay
to account for the property or the Walt
of it "some day." and some of the pu
chasers, who are not sued, declined,
con sequence, to remove the articles the