Year: 1878




to the Kilona plantation was brought to close
yesterday. before Judge Wallace and jury, in the
United States Circuit Court by verdict for the do.
fendant


The court opened at ten o'clock in the morning,
hour earlier than usual and after little deiay
caused by the non-appearance of juryman Mr.
Beckwith commenced his address to the jury for the
defendant. He reelected severely the plainti ana
his companions. He then gave history OF the New
Orleans litgations arising ont OF similar questions
in this suit and urged many points which he said
were in confirmation of the theory of the defence
He then at length related tho circumstances of the
alleged sale Of the plantation and proceeded to CONF
ment upon the testimony Of each witness. Tha
speech occupied few minutes over the hour and
was distinguished more for practical clearness than
brilliancy.


General Butler followed Immediately after Mr..
Beckwith and said that the very simple. and
the law equally simple. and that the issue gener-
ally stated that any one in possession OF property
claiming as his entitled to sue for the re-
coyery Of damages from those who interfered with
his possession In the of his address he re.
ferred the strong sturdy sense OF the soldier Gem
eral Sheridan and claimed that the General was in
duced do what he did by the superior Judgment OF
the lawyer who presented the petition of Mark Hoyt,
and there was not the shadow OF supposition to
believe that General Sheridan had in this case been
prompted thereto by any malice or Interested pur,
pose. He then commented on the testimony and
proceeded set forth the dangers that woud result
from allowing the first Indications Of military rule
to interfere with civil procedure.


THE CHARGE.


After recess Judge Wallace charged the jury ant
said :--Gentemen Of the Jury. yon to be con-
graduated that this long trial is at nearly its
close. The important duty, however, which devolves
upon you yet remains to be dischargedto determine
what the rights Of the parties as it has been
given you in accordance with the rules OF the law.
al you are instructed by the Court On the sth day


~ ala al he,
sion Of tho Killona plantation and Of the personal
property thereon he asserts. dispossessed by
Sheridan the defendant, which he claims
wrong, and has brought his action for respass, ir-
sisting that he shall be compensated for damages.
for the wrong which he thus sustained. The defend
ant denies that any wrong done; he denies
that the plaintiff in possession Of the property;
he denies that he dispossessed of it by any pro-
ceedings virtue of the order which was issued and
he insists that conceding all this to he true never.
theless he was justified in what he did, because OF
the position which he held and the duties that de-
volved upon him in that positions and also that he
justified because he had interviewed at the solci-
tation of Mark Hoyt while Mark Hoyt in possess
sion of this property Now, have held in this case
that the defendant cannot justify his action on the
itary commander in that district He there
under the law to protect the people in
their rights or persons ana proLpsftSy per y 10 70
there to adjndcate upon their legal rights about
property. and therefore in what he did he must be
sustained if lie can be sustained at all, upon the
theory that, having ntervened by the procurement
Of Hoyt, he occupies the position which Hoyt occu-
pied when he asserted his right to the possession Of
the property which the plaintiff claims he de-
priyed. have also had occasion during the trial. in
your presence to state some OF the principles OF the
law which control with regard to suits OF this kind.


person in possession OF personal property although
lie has acquired that possession wrongfully has
right to maintain the action against anybody who
deprivcs him of that property without right and
in such action he recover the full value
OF the property Of which he has been deprived.
SO in this case, il the plaintiff actually in pos
session. claiming the right to possess this property
hc can recover IN TINS action unless Mark Hoyt at the
time was the true owner. The first question, there
FORE you to determine in this will be WHETHER
tho sth Of August. the plaintiff was i'll possession
OF this personal property. That he was in occupa-
ton Of some portion of the promises upon the
Kona plantation seems to be beyond any reason
able doubt but whether he there tenant or
claiming right to manage it and to have the prop
crty in his custody may be very different question.
But if you find in this that at the time the plain
tiff was actual possession Of the property of which
lie deprived, then think 1t must follow upon
the principles OF law and upon the evidence in this
that lie will be entitled to recover IN this action
unless there had been purchase by Mark Hoyt, and
that purchase valid. honest and bona fide


WAS THE PURCHASE BY HoYT CONTAMINATED?


II Won come TO the conclusion that the pure by
Hoyt had been consumnatcd, that he had acquired
te TO this property without any design to defraud
the creditors then although you think the plaintiff
was actually in possession OF the property at tho
time he dispossessed, nevertheless it will be your
duty to render verdict for the defendant. Now,
with these primary considerations in mind your at
tention will be directed to the evidence.


Judge Wallace then called the attention of the jury
somewhat in detail to the testimony, and referred
to that portion OF which went to show whether
the plaintiff was in possession when he was dis.
possessed He read in this connection the agreement
under which slater operated the plantation and said
that the legal effect of that to give Slater the
tro and OF that property and also recited
the leading features Of the Porch SUITS the
Condor injunction and the Condor cross-bil Judge
Wallace then went on 70 say :-NoW, gentlemeh II
YOU think that at this point in the order OF these
transactions that Slater was in control Of the panla
ton that the plaintiff was there occupying portion
OF the premises in recognition OF the legal agreement
between Slater and the plaintiff, IL you find that
this b. in the recognition OF the interests
of Condor and in hostility TO the rights claims of
Hoyt or Morgans, you have starting point in this
case unless You find that there was some change
III the status between that time and the
time that this property was taken under the
order of the defendant, you may come TO the conclu
sion that Mr.. Whalcn was an occupant Of the preIn
ses but not to assume the control OF that panta
ton not to the control OF the property upon
it, did not claim to lnunage ~, but was living there
in recognition OF the rights of Slater, and II his
possession would not be such as enable him to
main this action. From this point out the status
of the parties, as to who really was to manage tho
plantation, rests OF course. upon oral evidence and
the ey idence taken by deposition. Mr. Whalen claims
t,at he In the control and management. and has
offered several witnesses to sustain him. On the other
hand the theory of the defendcnt is that Slater
not in the control or management OF the property at
all but II will he for you to say upon all the test
mouy in this who it that actually on this
plantation TO assume control OF the property. The
next question for You to consider Is whether the
sale made by Morgans Whalen a Hoyt was an honest
sale fraudulent one. Perhaps should say 1t Is
to be left to question of fnct whether there
sale ut ALL for such sale must DC executed fuly
by delivery for il not the defendant cannot justify
under the title OF Hoyt."


rHE VALIDITY


The Judge then referred to the Grover x Porch
claim In connection with this sale, and said that IL
the sale was valid sale the defendant could justify
under Hoyts title. because lie had better right than
the plaintiff. He then passed to tho question OF
damages II they thought the plaintiff entitled to
verdict he could recover tho full value of the prop
erty he was disposscsscd of. Judge Wallace con
clulcd by reminding the jury that this cause was
brought by individual against another, and that
IL controversy between private citizens ana
to be tried upon evidence delivered
and the dcpusitions read IL was not to be
determined upon prejudice, partiality or fear. II
was matter OF regret that General sheridan should
be involved in the controversy. What he had done
there doubt he had done from the best OF mo-
tves, and. of course malice to be attributed
to Him Nevertheless erred and the effect that
the plaintiff had been deprived of the property aud
II competent for the plaintiff to recover the fu
value uf the property against General Sheridan tho
plaintiff had amy title.


The jury, after an absence of nfty-nine minutes,