
    HEBREW CONGREGATION'S CASE. The Hebrew Congregation Benai Berith Jacob v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      The trustees of a religious corporation in Savannah buy seven hales of cotton with the funds of the corporation. The cotton is captured, and reported by the trustees and treated hy the officers of the government as belonging to the corporation. Suit is brought for the proceeds «neta- the Abandoned or captured property act. The claimant proves that its funds were never given in aid of the rebellion, and also proves the exercise of its franchise; but it does notproduceits charter. Its trustees are called on its behalf as witnesses.
    
    I. It is sufficient for a body corporate to show that it never gave aid or comfort to the rebellion, by showing-that it was incorporated for a lawful purpose, and that it never applied any part of its funds to aid the rebellion.
    II. Where the plea of mil tiel corporation is not pleaded in suits under the Abandoned or captwedproperty act, (12 Stat. L., p. 820,) and the property has been taken from the possession of the corporation, or lias been duly reported as owned by it, the defendants will be deemed to have dealt with it in its corporate capacity sufficiently to bring themselves within the ordinary rule of pleading.
    III. The trustees of a religious corporation are competent witnesses for the corporation in a suit against the United States, notwithstanding that the Act 25th June, 186S, (15 Stat. L., p. 75, § 4,) provides that “no claimant or any person from whom such claimant derives his alleged title, claim, or right against the United States, or any person interested'in any such title, claim, or right shall be a competent witness in the Court of Claims in supporting any such title, claim, or rightCongress did not intend that the statute should he extended beyond claimants prosecuting suits in their own names or for their owiv advantage, and persons who might take a direct pecuniary or material advantage from the result.
    Messrs. Hughes, Denver & Peclc for tbe claimants :
    The claim in this case is for the proceeds of seven bales of upland cotton, seized after the occupation of Savannah by the forces under command of General Sherman.
    The claimant is a body corporate, chartered in the year 1862, for religious purposes, by statute passed by the legislature of Georgia, with powers to buy and sell, and to sue and be sued.
    The evidence of the ownership of the cotton is to be found in the depositions of J. Rosenfeld, of Philip Dzialynski, and of Harry Haym. From these depositions it appears that Jacob Rosenfeld, minister and president of the Hebrew congregation of Savannah, the claimant in this case, was authorized by the ■ board of trustees of said congregation to purchase for its benefit seven bales of cotton, and that under this authority he made the purchase from Philip Dzialynski in “ about August, 1864,” and stored the same, a portion in his own store-house on Congress street, and a portion in Mr. Dzialynski’s, on Bay street, and that the cotton was purchased and paid for with money belonging exclusively to the congregation.
    No one of the witnesses examined testifies to the seizure, but evidence that the cotton was seized is found in book D, “ Registration of claimants of captured cotton at Savannah,” furnished by the War Department at the request of this court. On page 2 of transcript from this book are found the following entries
    
      a Hebrew Congregation B. B. J.
    “ J. R., D. G., and P.
    “ Feb. 11,2bales upland, stored at Holcomb & Co.’s store; 3 bales upland stored at Nos. 79 and 181 Bay street.”
    “ J. Rosenfeld, rabbi, in account with Hebrew Congregation.
    “ Feb. 6,10 bales upland, stored at A. R. Wright’s, Bay street 10 bales upland, stored at J. Rosenfeld’s, No. 159 Congress street; taken March 10, 10 bales; 2 bales upland, stored at J. Rosen-feld’s, No. 159 Congress street.”
    The apparent discrepancy as to the quantity of cotton is explained by Philip Dzialynski, who says “ five of the seven bales were stored in Holcomb’s warehouse,” evidently the five bales referred to in the first of the above entries; “and two back of the store-house in Holcomb’s store, on Congress street,” probably the two bales referred to as stored at J. Rosenfeld’s, No. 159 Congress street, in the latter part of the second entry. Book D, from which th'e above entries are taken, contains the names of the claimants who reported their cotton to Colonel Ransom.
    That the cotton of claimant, after being seized, was shipped to New York, is proved by' Marmaduke Hamilton, to whose deposition the following is appended as an exhibit:
    “Exhibit A.
    “ Ship L. L. Sturgis, March 4th, 1865; J. Rosenfeld for Hebrew congregation, marked A. B., 646 a 652; 7 bales upland, weighing 2,216 lbs.”
    The arrival of this ship in New York, and the transfer of her cargo to Simeon Draper, Hnited States cotton agent, is noted on page 7 of the testimony of Francis Robinson in Padelford & Mott, made evidence in this case by stipulation.
    The claimant being a corporation, it only remains to show that it rendered no aid or comfort to the rebellion.
    Upon this point J. Rosenfeld testifies as follows:
    “The congregation never applied any part of its funds to help the rebellion; I know that, because I had the disposing of all the funds; they never gave any assistance to the rebellion or those engaged in it.”
    Harry Haym says:
    “I was one of the board of trustees; no portion of the funds of that congregation was applied to aid the rebellion or those in arms against the United States.”
    Tobias Brown, who was one of the trustees, testifies as follows :
    “ No portion of the funds of the congregation were ever used to aid the rebellion, or give assistance or countenance in any way to those engaged in arms against the United States, or to the Confederate government.”
    There is not a particle of evidence tending to show that the Hebrew congregation was ever engaged in blockade-running.
    In view of the foregoing, a judgment is respectfully asked from, this honorable court in favor of the claimant for the proceeds of the cotton claimed, in accordance with the statement of Francis Bobinson, special agent of the Treasury Department at New York.
    
      Mr. Alexander Johnston for the defendants.
   Nott, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an action brought to recover the proceeds of seven bales of upland cotton captured at Savannah, amounting to $1,200 in gold, as is alleged.

The claimant is a religious corporation, duly incorporated, it is claimed, in 1862, under the statutes of the State of Georgia, and has been exercising its franchise, it is shown, ever since, in Savannah.

In August, 1864, the president of its trustees, being duly authorized by the board of trustees, purchased with the money of the congregation seven bales of upland cotton. No one but the congregation (meaning thereby the incorporated body) had any interest in the cotton. It was held as an investment till captured, and was then reported by the trustees as the property of the congregation.

The claimant has shown, so far as a body corporate can do so, that it never gave aid or comfort to the rebellion, by showing that it was incorporated for religious purposes entirely, and that it never applied any part of its funds to help the rebellion. The capture of the cotton is satisfactorily shown both by the testimony of witnesses and the official record of the Quartermaster Department. The proceeds in the Treasury amount to $1,227 31.

Two questions have arisen in the case, which were previously presented to the court on motion, and elaborately argued. It was objected on the part of the defendants: First, that the incorporation of the society must be proved by the production of its charter, and that parol evidence is not admissible to show the exercise of its franchise until the fact of its incorporation be first established. Second, that the trustees of a body corporate are not competent witnesses for the corporation, and cannot be allowed to testify within the true intent and meaning of the Act 25th June, 1868, (15 Stat. L., p. 75, § 4.) *

The court, after due deliberation, decided: First, that the rule wbicb ordinarily prevails should also govern actions under tbe Abandoned, or captured property act, and tbat tbe claimant should not be required to prove its incorporation unless tbe allegation of its1 incorporation be specially traversed. Second, tbat tbe trustees of a religious incorporation are neither “claimants” nor “persons interested,” within tbe true intent andmeaning of tbe statute which prohibits claimants and persons interested from testifying in this court against tbe United States. To those decisions we still adhere. Where the plea of nul Mel corporation is not pleaded in these abandoned or captured property cases, and the property has been taken from the possession of the corporation, or has been duly reported as owned by it, the defendants will be deemed to have dealt with it in its corporate capacity sufficiently to bring themselves within the ordinary rule.

And with respect to the statute regulating evidence in this court, we still think it was never intended by Congress that it should be extended beyond claimants prosecuting suits in their own names or for their own advantage, and persons who might, take a direct pecuniary or material advantage from the result. These trustees are neither such claimants nor such persons interested. They do not prosecute the suit in their own names, nor will they acquire anything by its result. Therefore, their testimony should be admitted.

The judgment of the court is, that the claimant recover from the defendants the net proceeds, now in the Treasury of the United States, of seven bales of upland cotton, captured at Savannah] being $175 33 a bale, amounting in the aggregate to $1,227 31.

Peck, J., did not sit in- this case and took no part in the decision.  