Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1879-01-29
THE .gBEF.TGT0.N CSSE.
Repottsd fer the Alexandra Gazette.


have en opportunity to rebut the evidence
contained il the paper then read. Eo had sept
fer Captain Slr,pg, AID expected hin every
moment. He must ask the indulgence OF tho
Court until Captain Strong came.
The Court said, that il was 50 understood, aod
asked if The case would then be ready Ter the
jury?
Judge Willoughby had one Or Two mors In
sruc!iors bearing Oh Captain Stronsa evidence;
The Court asked if they c9u!a u5t be filed
nov.
Judge Wioughty presented them as follows:
l;t. That The Jury must be satisfied from The
evidence that the deiendsnts Kaufman and
Stroug possessed some particular porti2a OF the
land.
"a. If the jury believe that any material
portion of the laud was net occ1plcd or pos
sessed by Kaufman and Strong. thcy could rot
! fined against than for such portion.
81. II tie plaintiff is entitled to only part
| of the land, and cannot specify that part With
certainty, then the vardic. mus be- icr the
! defendants.
| 4h That verdict for e poE!lon OF the
| premises must specify the same with the same
certaiat7, as 10 the declaration.
| All Ct these we're agreed to-
judge Robertson offered al additional III
siructioD. substantially as follows:
| If the Jury believe &,. that the premises or
part thereof we're 10 possession G! Strong aud
kauffmao. as officers or agents CT the Uo'ted
States, then such occupation Is SUFFICIENT TO
cusblc ihe plautif 10 mailtain Eissction against
| .hem.
This wss aIloHtl by The Court end aCc.p!eu
to By the dttopse.
Judge Wilicushbg offered 10 evidenc, The
1eclsra.ion in the c,sc Of Leo vs. Branhan ct
els, to shos the existence OF that suit and loo
| facts mentioned in the declaration.
| Capt: Il. p. Strong was then put upon !Ec
stand.
Examined By Judge Willoughby. a large
numbcr Of The defendants were IN occupatleo
when he took comm and at Fort Whipple, by
PERMITS FROM tho Frecdman's Bureau. The
| houses, except few which were originally GA
| tic premises, were the property OF the ccoa-
pants. lie clainled 20 interest or authority IN
| the premises except rs the agcuL ct the Ualted
! States.
! Cross examined. Thcle were 800 acres ia tho
| fort, which were covered by barracks. ~. lie
could specify what portions 'Serc USED by ncgrocs
if h. had the map.
Judge Robertson then rad the ameo lmert
to tho answer admitted yesterday.
Cspt. S!roog resunine. l1o believed the
statements 10 tho paper to be still true. lie
vas 10 charge of the whole ct tire Arlington cs
ts!o outside Of tie cemetery walls. aud TIC
other parties held under bis uhorlty. II
there vas any disorder he would feel compelled
to preserve order aad if necessary to eject tGem
b. Judge Willoushby. lie did not kto1
!! the legal meaning Of the tern tenant.
| BIZ Mr. Lewis He thought that fully nine
!ca.hs OF those now on the estate were there
| l.. ~ Tho pnrr-it, oiC 4
IS cvi3cgca OF the hight ct thc;c people TO Dc
Dartmept.
Majar Page. Could rot tho Wer Depart
ment remove you?
C.p. Strong. They can do as they please.
| Laughter He did not understand tic por-
lion Of the estate occupied BY Maria Sypba1. as
2 part Of the military reservation.
! A question here orose 50 10 Whelhtr tDsn
prsssntcd was in evidence or oct.
The Court said map vas sect up mth the
papers from the State Court.
MIR. Lewis ccncpdcd that his IIono.' i ro,k ct
handkerchief or Ms,r Pages will might have
been sent up.
Major Page. Then the will would h,vl been
evidence for what it Was worth.
Mr.. Lawis-It would DOT b. wctlli anything.
| Laughter.
Capt. Strong identified On the map the pr
ton set apart Tor Maria SrnhaZ.
Mr.. Beach then opened the argument loT the
plaintiff. He sid that The fact Of G. ". Z.
Gusts being the owner OF Arlington was an
historical fac! 10 this poriijn Of Virginia, aud
is descent to tho plaiDtif WAS we'll Known.
The ouy question at issue Was the validity CT
the tax sals. Tie offer to pay the tsxts vas
proven positively by two credible Witnesses,
while 90 the ether side there was oL!g the ucg.
alive statement Of o1e rartv that he did lot
rcaoec, it. This ho claimed established the
offer to pay. 1t Was also shoRn that thu ctt9r
to ray was made p!ior to the day Of sale. Mr..
Johnston Vas evidently more likely 10 be mis-
taken as to who the officer We, who refused
the tender, than he was as 10 the date. MIR.
~Jsnpey's evidence was clear and satisfactory 90
tic subjsc:. Mr.. Fcuda bad comc over here
| 10 pay The tax aud save tho property, as re-
questcd By Dir. Marshall. He was q lawyer
aud familiar With tic law, aud would hardly
have waited until after The sale 10 make the
tender. All of Ibis evidence showed tender,
aud ct the proper time.
lie then took up tho Instruction, as to The
general rulc cf tic commissioners. 10 refuse
is1ts from any one except the owner. Ihe ex-
is:ence Of such rule had been proven BY the
| head commissioner, the clerk in the othce and
! By numerous parties asalus! whom 1t had been
cufcrccd. it tad been attempted to be shown
By the ether sido that the rule was mad. sitter
this sale This WAS shown 10 b, taliselous
from the feet that The rule applied to all ad-
verrlssd property, aud Immediately upon. such
advertisement The evidence showed both tie
IF n 10 pay aud the eyisteLcs Of tho rule.
The plliu:iT asked oo8 only verdict againat
kauffnan cad Sroug. and did not care for one
sgainst the uerrocs on the place, who held on
| " under Capt S!ropg. It Was he thought,
evident that Kaufman heli the cemetery and
Strong The rest Of the estate. These coorad
people were there by Capt. St:oDg permission
ard 10 no other way. Tho Government held
possession simply by the strong arm Of power.
District Attorney Lewis opened for the de.
feuse. Iie thought the only question was Wheth.
er there was anything in this case to inVadate
the tax c,rtifcite. The act of Congress pro.
vided the Only means for inValidaling that Ger.
tihca!c; these we're. the payment OF taxes. or
the redemption after sale. The plaintiffs had
h.ir m coi an NJ tnea5 hy az.