Case Name: Beck vs. Ingram
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1866-02-25
Citations: 1 Bush 355
Docket Number: 
Parties: Beck vs. Ingram.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Reports
Volume: 64
Pages: 355–356

Head Matter:
CASE 86 — PETITION ORDINARY
FEBRUARY 25.
Beck vs. Ingram.
APPEAL PROM CUMBERLAND CIRCUIT COURT.
A captain of the Confederate army held responsible for mules seized and converted by him, “because there was no ground to apprehend that the destination of the mules was contraband, and more materially because, at the time of the seizure and conversion, the appellant ( defendant in the circuit court) was a paroled prisoner of the United States, denuded of all belligerent,rights of capture, and had neither order nor other authority to take the males for Confederate use.”
P. H. Leslie, For Appellant,
CITED—
13 jHoward, 135.
1 Duvall, 182.
Civil Code, sec. 351.
John S. VanWinkle, For Appellee,
CITED— .
1 Duvall, 312 ; Spalding vs. Bull.
1 Duvall, 59; Gregory vs. McFarland.
1 Cowp., 180; Moslyn vs. Fohugas.
13 Howard, 135-6 ; Mitchell vs. Harmony.
1 Duvall, 182; Commonwealth vs. Holland.
Sess. Acts, Ky. Legislature, 1863-4, p. 116.
MSS. Opin., Dec. 14, 1865; Bronson vs. Green.
4 Metcalfe, 385; Norris vs. Donaphan.
8 Cranch, 110 ; Brewer vs. United States.
MSS. Opin., Dec. 14, 1866; Farmer vs. Lewis.
Wheaton, 596.

Opinion:
JUDGE ROBERTSON
delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellee, a citizen of Kentucky, while on his way to his home in Wayne county with a lot of mules bought for his own use, was robbed of them by the appellant, in Tennessee, near the Kentucky l.ine, and brought this action to recover damages for the trespass.
The appellant, in his answer, alleged that, as a Confederate captain he took the mules for the use of the Confederacy ; and also, because he was apprehensive that they were in transitu to the Federal army and for its use. A judgment for reasonable damages was rendered against him, and we see no cause for reversing it, because there was no ground to apprehend that the destination of the mules was contraband; and more materially because, at the time of the seizure and conversion the appellant was a paroled prisoner of the United States, deiiuded of all belligerent rights of capture, and had neither order nor other authority to take the mules for Confederate use.
Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.