
    FISHER’S CASE. Daniel B. Fisher v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      In an action under the Abandoned or captured property act, the claimant’s evidence shows that he led a wandering life dmiiig the rebellion, being at various places ivithin the insurrectionary districts engaged chiefly in traffic. Sis evidence of loyal conduct ceases with the year 1863, nor does it extend to his acts while he ivas in Texas and on the Mississippi.
    
    Where the evidence of loyal conduct offered hy a party who voluntarily resided within 'the insurrectionary districts during the rebellion stops with the year 1863, and does not extend to his acts while he was in certain places, it is insufficient, and he will be deemed disloyal.
    
      Messrs. Cooley & Clarice for the claimant:
    In this action the claimant seeks to recover the net proceeds of eight bales of upland cotton, of which he was the owner, which were seized by the Union authorities, under the Act March 12,1863, providing for the seizure of captured and abandoned property, at Savannah, Georgia, after the capture of that city, in December, 1864. We shall proceed to show, by citations from the testimony embodied in the record, that the three main facts essential to a recovery are established.
    I. That the claimant toas the oioner of the cotton. — The fact of the purchase of the cotton is proven by the testimony of Robert W. Fisher.
    II. That the cotton toas seized and sold, and that the proceeds have been paid into the National Treasury. — The return from the War Department, in answer to a rule of this court, shows the registration and shipment of the cotton, as follows :
    “ Transcript of entry from hoolc marked £ D,’ registration of claimants of captured cotton at Savannah, Georgia.
    
    
      “ W. H. Bubboughs.
    “1865.
    “ Jan. 19. 8 bales upland, stored in back store 97 Bay street.
    D. B. F. Taken from store February 8, 8 bales. Remarks: 3,720. 8. 3,720.”
    
      
      u Transcript of entry from boolc marked lH,’ statement of captured cotton from Savannah, with names of claimants.
    
    “W. H. Btjbbotjg-hs.
    “1865.
    “ Feb. 8. Ship Mayflower. A. B. 8 bales upland.”
    That all the cotton shipped from Savannah to New York was sold there, and the proceeds paid into the National Treasury, as well as the net proceeds per bale, is fully shown by the deposition of Francis Bobinson, the cotton agent of the government in New York, which is used in this case by agreement,^and . attached to the record.
    III. That the claimant rendered no voluntary aid or comfort to the late rebellion, but consistently adhered to the United States.— The record shows and will satisfy the court that the claimant was in feeble health, in consequence of which he was enabled to keep out of the rebel service, and that he moved about from place to place to avoid conscription.
    
      The Assistant Attorney General for the defendants:
    The point in question is the loyalty of the claimant.
    His residence was within the sway of the rebellion from its commencement to its close; during the first year of the war in Virginia, where, according to the statement of his own witness, (and uncle,) it was unsafe for any person, even suspected of sympathy with the North, to reside.
    No act exhibiting a feeling of loyalty to the United States, except that of giving tobacco to the Union prisoners of war on a railroad in Georgia, in November, 1863, is proved.
    No general reputation as a Union man is shown; and the expressions by him of Union sentiments, which are sworn to, are of the most subdued kind.
    Nothing is shown inconsistent with complete loyalty to the confederacy. The evidence in his behalf leaves. him within reach of the rule, that he that was not for us was against us.
   Nott, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an action brought to recover the proceeds of eight bales of upland cotton, captured at Savannah, amounting- to $2,120 40. The court finds as matter of fact in this case—

First. In the year 1863 Daniel B. Fisher purchased eight bales of upland cotton, which were delivered into his possession, and were shipped by him to William H. Burroughs, at Savannah, by whom it was stored for the said claimant.

Second. The cotton remained in the possession of Burroughs, as the agent of the said claimant, till after the capture of the city of Savannah by the Union military authorities, in December, 1864.

Third. Burroughs reported the cotton in his own name to the military authorities, in pursuance of published orders. It was then seized and shipped to New York, where it was turned over to the United States cotton agent. The net proceeds have been paid into the Treasury of the United States, and amount to $1,402 64.

The point is made by the defendants’ counsel that, inasmuch as the cotton was procured in exchange for two negro men, and the transaction occurred in the fall of 1863, after the President’s proclamation of January 1, 1863, had been promulgated and was universally known throughout the South, therefore there was a want of a valid consideration, and no title passed to the vendee, the claimant. In the view we take of the case, it is unnecessary to consider the point.

The claimant has proved by numerous witnesses what they term his u loyal sentiments.” He has also shown that he sympathized with and aided United States prisoners; that in the opinion of the'se witnesses he was loyal to the United States; that so far as their knowledge extended he never gave aid or comfort to the rebellion; and that he was reputed to be a Union man.

But it appears from the claimant’s evidence that he led a wandering life during the period of the rebellion, having been at Manassas, Warrenton, Lynchburg, Savannah, and Americus, besides trading in Florida, Texas, and on the Mississippi. Traffic seems to have been his chief occupation, though for a year a small farm near Americus, Georgia, u furnished him with business.” His evidence of loyal conduct ceases with the year 1863, nor does it extend to his acts when he was in Texas and on the Mississippi.

The claimant was a voluntary resident within the insurrec-tionary districts. His nearer relatives seem to liave been, all • disloyal. The fact that he did not bear arms may be dne to the fact (established in the case) that he was unfit for military service. We must reiterate the repeated ruling of this court, first enunciated in Margaret Bond's Case, (2 0. Cls. R., p. 534,) that evidence of loyalty “ must cover the entire period of the war, so that it shall appear that he never ’ gave aid or comfort to the rebellion.”

The judgment of the court is that the petition be dismissed. ■  