New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-04-10

personal service of irregular or erroneous
process. In that case the party has notice
in part, and may, if ne will. appear and
object to or waive the irregu'arltyn See
also Pursley VS.. HOyes, ~ Iowa 81: Th0mp-
son VS.. Doe. 8 Blackford 1856.
am OF opinion. therefore. in the proofs
as presented, that Greenwood was legally
served with sufficient citation, and that
the court acquired jurisdiction of his
person.
1t is next objected to the validity of the
record and proceedings in the Sixth Dis
trict Court. that the court had no jurisdic-
ton 70 order sale of the property in ques-
ton. because it was abandoned property,
and the treasury agents we're directed by
la to take charge Of and lease the same.
and therefore no court had jurisdiction to
seize and sell
1t is sufficient answer to this to say that
the property was not abandoned. as that
term is defined in the statute: Proper
ties shall be regarded as abandoned when
the lawful owner shall be voluntarily alb
sent therefrom, anu engaged either in
arms. or otherwise in aiding or encouraging
the rebellion" l3 Statutes at Large, 80,
section H. While there is evidence to show
that Greenwood was voluntarily absent,
there is no proof that he !'was engaged
either in arms or otherwise in aiding or en-
cOuragng the rebellion" So there is no
proof before us to establish that the prop
erty sold by order of the Sixth District
Court was, in fact, abandoned property.
The evidence ither tends to prove that 1t
was not. This objection to the record is
therefore untenable.
Plaintiff next claims to have Shown that
Greenwood was expelled from this city by
the military authorities pending the pro-
ceedngs against him, and not permitted to
return. and that, as consequence. all tie
proceedings had in the case after his eXpul-
sion were null and void
The legal proposition embraced in this ob.
lection to the record is, in our opinion.
sound. but We do not think the tacts alleged
are substantiated by the proof.
The evidence shows that the judgment
against Greenwood was signed February
II, 1863. BY General Orders No. 81 of
Major General Butler, dated April q. 1863.
registered enemies OF the United Slates
were ordered to leave the department.
Greenwood was registered enemy. On
May 9 he was specially ordered to leave the
city, and about that time he was put on
board of schooner in the Old Basin and
sent to East PascagOula. Mississippi. where
he arrived On the seventeenth of May. The
reason why he was sent out was because he
had chosen to register himself as an enemy
of the United States. The evidence shows
that on the third of October, 1862, he had
".
accordance with General Orders No. IS of
Major General Butler, dated September "a,
1862, and claimed to be u public enemy of
the United States.
Although he had been previous to the
aforementioned order an enemy of the
United States, he was allowed by the terms
of the order to renew his allegiance, and
was given till the first day of October then
next to do 80. Greenwood refused to re-
In al, o,,,1r- 1,n
fore the marshal OF registration and claimed
to be an enemy of the United States. His
expulsion from the military lines of the
United States was therefore the result of
his own voluntary act. BY dSiug his duty
to the government, by renewing his ale
glance. his expulsion would have been pre-
vented. On the eighth of December, 1868.
the President published his amnesty
proclamation. There is no proof to show
that Greenwood might not have availed of
it himself and returned to this city. So
that not only was his removal the result of
his own voluntary act. but his neglect to
return was also voluntary.
No proceedings subsequent to the judg-
ment were had III the case against him IN
the Sixth District Court until the sixteenth
of December. 1865. when an order ut
seizure and sale was issued. The Sheriff
having returned that Greenwood could not
be found. and that he was absent from the
State, the court appointed curator I'D roe.
upon whom. according to the Code of
Practice. notice OF the seizure was served,
and such proceedings were afterward had
as resulted in ii sale OF the premises in
question.
All these proceedings We're IN conformity
to law, so that the only question now is,
did the absence of Greenwood frem the
State, under the circumstances already
,,,o ln,,
This question is concluslveiy answered by
the Supreme Court of the United States in
Ludlow vs. Ramsey; Ii Wall. $50.
lon these allegations. says DIR. Justice
Bradley. speaking for the court, ''the ques-
ton arises. why was the complainant il the
country held by the confederate troops
Why could he not return to Knoxville, why
could. lie not have communication with
that place 1t was his place Of residence.
He says that he left Knoxville short
time before the federal troops arrived. Why
did he leave, Was he forced to leave, and
was his return forbidden . Could he not
have returned at any moment bT submit
ting to the authority of the United States
Was not his absence voluntary one The
order OF publication was made in the Janu-
airy sales 1864 President Lincoln's proc
laination of amnesty was issued on the
eighth of December, offering pardon and
amnesty to all persons who would take the
oath OF allegiance. Then what obstacle ex-
listed to prevent the compliments return.
This case differs from the case of Dean
VS.. Nelson, decided at the present term. In
that case Nelson and his wife were driven |
out OF Memphis by a military order, and
not permitted to return, and the proceed
ings 10 foreclose their property took place
during their enforced absence. But if. as |
in this case party voluntarily leaves hs |
county or place of residence for the pur.
pose of engaging in hostilities against the
former, he can not be permitted to complain
OF legal proceedings regularly prosecuted |
against him as an absentee on the ground |
OF his inability to return or to hold commu- |
nication with the place where the proceed |
ngs were conducted. That would he car
ryng the privilege of contra nan ralentum |
to an unreasonable extent We think it /
can not be set W. in this case
The absence of Greenwood was quite as |
voluntary as that of Ramsey, in the case
ust cited. If he had taken the oath of al
egiance. and remained thereafter loyal to
tie United States, he would not have been
sent from the city. and he knew it. He
those to assume the character of an enemy
IF the United States. If he had voluntarily
gone at the time to engage in h0stilities
against the United States, the legal proceed
ngs against him. atter the rendition OF the
Judgment. would have been valid.
Is his case bcttered by the fact that he
chose to be an enemy inside the lines. and
as consequence was expelled, II either
case his absence from his resi-, ance is the
result OF his voluntary act. Beside he
might have returned. There was no mo-
lnent OF time, from his expulsion to the eiId
OF Ihe war, when he might not have re-
turned on submitting to the authority of
me nlted States, and undertaking to do
lis duty as good citizen. We must. there
fore, oNerruie ths objection to the yaliditv
Of tle pr0ceedipgs md recn1d q. d. Sit