
    MRS. JOHNSON’S CASE. Matilda Johnson v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      Sirty-fvee hales of cotton capturen from the claimant are traced to an employe of a Treasury agent. A portion thereof appears to have come to the possession of the agent and, the proceeds to he in the Treasury. The remainder is not traced to the Treasury agent, nor to any officer or agent of the Government. There is 
      a fund in the Treasury derived from cotton captured at the sane place, and about the same time. It is insisted by counsel that a presumption arises that the claimant’s cotton contributed to that fund. The case is remanded for further evidence as to the missing cotton, but is resubmitted by counsel.
    
    Where captured cotton is traced to the employé of a Treasury agent, hut is not traced to the agent nor to any officer of the Government, no presumption arises that it was transmitted to the Government, nor that the proceeds thereof are in the Treasury. The presumption which ordinarily arises where the property is traced to an officer of -the Government does not extend to a mere contractor or employé of an officer, and the burden remains upon the claimant to show that the property came into the possession of the Government.
    
      Mr. R. M. Corwine for the claimant.
    
      Mr. Alexander Johnston (with whom was the Assistant Attorney-General) for the defendants.
   Nott, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

We have re-examined this case at the request of counsel, in view of the age of the claimant, and the inconvenience of further delay to her, but are unable to reach a different conclusion than was intimated when the case was remanded.

It appears that seventy-two bales were seized, and seven given for ginning. The remaining sixty-five are traced to one Abbott, an employé of the Treasury agent. But they are not traeed to the Treasury agent, and we think the presumption which arises, when the property has been traced to an officer of the 'Government, does not arise as to a mere contractor or employé of an officer. It therefore remains a burden upon the claimant to show that her property came into the possession of the Government.

This she has done as to thirty-two bales of the captured cotton. The returns of the Treasury show that thirty-two bales were taken, which, by marks, the name of the plantation, and the bill of the employé, are sufficiently identified as the claimant’s. These went into a lot of two hundred and thirty-eight bales, shipped from Little Book in April, 1864, and sold in Cincinnati in June. The net proceeds were $474,86 per bale.

The remaining thirty-three bales do not appear upon the Treasury returns. They are said to be included in the lot of two hundred and thirty-eight. But, in the first place, all of the bales in that lot are identified by marks, and appear as the thirty-two before mentioned, or as the property of other persons. In the second place, if they came to the custody of the Treasury agent, it was through Abbott, and at the same time that the thirty-two bales did, and he would have the same bill of charges to present against them. On the contrary, it appears that his bill was confined to thirty-two bales, and did not extend to sixty-five. We are therefore forced to conclude that only thirty-two reached the Treasury.

The judgment of the court is, that the claimant recover the proceeds of thirty-two bales of cotton captured. near Little Eock, being $474.86 a bale, amounting in the aggregate to $15,195.52.  