The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1885-03-12

and recommendations of q citizens meeting
that day held, adopted a resolution giving
300 cash and $500 in bonds of the city to
each person who. since Sept. 81, 1864, had
been or should therefrom be enlisted and
credited 10 any ward in the city. This $500,
judging from the record, included the $50
previously allowed. Roberts came within
this resolution, and Field, on or about Oct.
10, 1864, ON presentation of the instrument
signed by Roberts, obtained from the city
800 in cash and the city bond of 5000
which he afterward negotiated and on which
he received the money. Roberts having
heard of this additional bounty, wrote in DC
tober from the front near Petersburg, TO his
brother in Detroit To call on Mr.. Field and
obtain from him the $3.50 balance of the
city bounty still due him. The brother, call
ing upon Field for that purpose, was told by
the latter that Roberts had assigned the
$3.50 to him, and he therefore declined To
pay it,
Early in the winter of 1866, Roberts hav-
ing frrlough TO attend a court-plertial at
Jackson, came up from Petersburg and called
upon Field at Detroit for the remainder of
the city bounty due him and collected by
Field. The latter denied owing him $3.50,
admitted that he had collected it OF the city,
but claimed it under the paper or assign
ment which Roberts had signed at the date
of his enlistment. Field claimed that he had
taken the risk of losing it; that it was fair
business transaction, and that he would not
pay him any more.
The defense in this action took the ground
that Field had taken contract TO I'LL the
quota of the fourth ward under the pend
ing call of the president for 800 900 men, and
il was intinlated in the argument OF Fields
counsel that as a part of the contract with
the ward, he was to be allowed any city
bounty which the common council might see
fit TO allow to or for men thus enlisting that
the resolution Of the council giving the $500
bounty gave il not to the enlisted man or
for his benefit but to the person who should
furnish the man; that Roberts enlisted and
was credited to the fourth ward under this
arrangement, and was therefore to be con-
sidered as furnished by Field within the
meaning of this resolution.
The supreme courts opinion, rendered by
the late Judge Christiancy, held that there
was no evidence even tending TO show that
Field had a contract with the fourth ward
or was in any sense bound TO furnish its
quota of men that he did not even make
such claim to Roberts; that had such a
contract been made it would not have emit
tied Field 70 his claim unless it could be
shown that the ward had contracted that he
should have the benefit of any city bounty
that might be given on account of the men
enlisted and credited to that ward, and that
the city, by its common council, had granted
this bounty for the relief of the respective
wards instead of the enlisted men. Had
such contract existed, however, the court
asked why Field should have paid Roberts
the $50. The other grounds of defense
were shown equally baseless, and judgment
was reversed, with costs to the plaintiff in
error, and new trial was awarded. Mr..
Field afterwards settled.
In one paragraph of the judges opinion
appears the following: son the other hand,
we should be doing injustice TO the patriot
ism of the common council of that day, to
attribute TO them the intention of granting
bounty without reference TO the benefit of
the soldier himself who was to risk his life
in the defense of his country, should we as
sumo that the object of granting such liberal
bounties, for which the properties and the
energies Of the people were to be so heavily
taxed, was merely to enable bounty brokers
to speculate in the blood and Bones of their
more patriotic fellow-citizens." Detroit Post.