
    WILLIS’ CASE. Francis T. Willis v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      The claimant proves that he owned and was possessed of 134 bales of cotton, in Savannah, at the time of capture. It lay in three different places, but all was 
      
      reported lo the qnartermastei'. As to one parcel, there is no entry of seizure on the cpiarlermasler’s books. An employé in Ms office testifies that all the cotton in that building was captured, and names the transports by which it was shipped. The defendants do not produce the bill of lading of the transport, nor refute the testimony.
    
    When an employé of a quartermaster charged with the care of captured property testifies of the seizure of a party’s property, and designates the transport on which it was shipped, it is sufficient evidence of capture, though the property may not appear on the quartermaster’s hooks. The defendants should produce the bill of lading of the transjsort, or otherwise refute the testimony of the witness.
    
      Messrs. Carlisle & McPherson for the claimant:
    This suit is instituted in this court b3r original petition, under the act of March 12,1863, and the claimant seeks to recover by it the “net proceeds of one hundred and thirty-four bales of upland cotton, taken. from his possession after the capture of Savannah, Georgia, by the United States military forces under command of General Sherman.”
    The ■claimant establishes by most conclusive evidence all the facts required by the statute under which he prefers his claim.
    I. That he was the owner in gobd faith of the cotton, the proceeds of which he claims in this suit.
    II. The cotton owned by the claimant, the proceeds of which he claims, was seized by the United States, and the proceeds thereof have come into the treasury of the United States.
    If it is objected that the record furnishes evidence of the shipment of only ninety-nine bales of cotton, then we reply that we have other competent evidence of the fact of the shipment of this cotton. That evidence is found in a public record, and is the official report made by Colonel Hansom, to the Quartermaster General, as to the disposition made by Mm of the cotton captured at Savannah; this is to be found in the House Ex. Doc. No. 97, 2d session Thirty-ninth Congress, p. 82, and is as follows:
    Savannah, Georgia, March 21,1865'.
    General : I have the honor to say that I have tranferred to the Treasury Department upwards of thirty-eight thousand bales of cotton to present date. The provost marshal is now making a thorough search of all houses in this city, to discover all small lots of cotton thathave not been reported. I hope to close up the business tliis week. I shall then report, as ordered, to you in Washington, unless other orders are received from you. .
    I am, general, respectfully, your obedient servant,'
    H. 0. EANSOM,
    
      Lieutenant Colonel and Quartermaster.
    
    General M. C. Meigs.
    The officer charged with the seizure and shipment of this cotton reports that, at the time the above report was made, all cotton, except such as had not been reported, had been transferred to the Treasury Department. The cotton claimed in this suit, therefore, having been previously reported, as required by the order of Colonel .Eansom, must have been seized and shipped at the time this report was made.
    The testimony of Francis Eobinson, to whose deposition the attention of the court has been so often directed, shows the sale and payment into the treasury of the proceeds' of all the cotton seized at Savannah. According to the testimony of this witness, the net proceeds of a bale of upland cotton captured at Savannah was $190 47.
    III. The claimant gave neither aid nor comfort to the late rebellion, nor to persons engaged therein, but consistently adhered to the United States.
    The vigilant counsel for the Treasury Department has not assailed or called in question the conclusive evidence by which the loyalty of this claimant has been established.
    It is submitted, therefore, that this claimant brings himself within the strictest requirements of the statute under which this suit is instituted here -, and that he should recover the “net proceeds” of one hundred and thirty-four bales of cotton, amounting, as we have shown, to the sum of $25,522 98. .
    
      Mr. Alexander Johnston for defendants.
   Nott, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an action-brought to recover the net proceeds of one hundred and thirty-four bales of cotton, alleged to be not less than $26,000.

It appears that the claimant, a physician, residing in Savannah throughout the rebellion, warmly opposed the secession of his State. He was considered and known in Savannah as a Union man. General Lawton, a confederate military officer, commanding 'the coast of Georgia, and having his headquarters in Savannah, classed him at the time as a emphatically a Union man.” He advised his friends against investments in confederate securities, and never hesitated to. express his views as decidedly opposed to the rebellion.

On the other side, it is urged that he was president of the Augusta and Savannah Railroad, and retained that office during the war. It is also urged that his two sons were in the confederate military service, and that both were minors.

In answer to these objections, it is shown that the office of president of the Augusta and Savannah Railroad was little more than nominal, the road then being leased to and operated by the Georgia Central Railroad. It is also shown that the two sons of Dr. Willis were within the military age of conscription when they enlisted, and that their enlistments were against their father’s wishes. No act of aid or comfort to the rebellion is shown by the defendants, and the claimant’s loyal adherence to the United States is established to the satisfaction of all the judges. .

The ownership of the claimant in one hundred and thirty-four bales of cotton is proven. At the time of the capture of Savannah this cotton lay in three several parcels. All were reported by the claimant to the military authorities; two,, amounting to ninety-nine bales, were seized, and the proceeds -are.clearly traced to the treasury; the third-still'lay in the vendor’s store-house. The claimant has .shown, by the testimony of the employé having charge of the shipment of cotton under the quartermaster at Savannah, that all of the cotton was in this store-house, and he names the vessels by which it was shipped to New York. The evidence sent down from the War Department confirms the testimony as to ninety-nine bales. There is some doubt as to the quantity carried by the other vessel. The “ Transcript” of the quartermaster’s books mentions only twenty-nine bales, under the head of Various,” which it is conjectured was the cotton of the claimant, and all that was shipped on the vessel. But the defendants could produce the bill of lading of the vessel, and refute the witness by better evidence than conjecture.

The judgment of the court is, that the claimant recover'the net proceeds in the Treasury of one hundred and thirty-four bales of upland cotton, captured at Savannah, amounting in the aggregate to $23,494 22.  