Summary: Anderson's claim for horses and farm supplies was disallowed in 1872 because the commissioners were not satisfied that he was loyal to the Union during the war. His heir, John Fauver, filed several appeals of this decision with the Congressional Court of Claims beginning in 1902.
Items Claimed:
| Item Claimed: | Amount Claimed: | Amount Allowed: | Amount Disallowed: |
| 1 bay Horse | 150.00 | 0 | 150.00 |
| 1 brown Mare | 175.00 | 0 | 175.00 |
| 1 Sorrel Mare | 150.00 | 0 | 150.00 |
| 200 lbs Bacon, 20- | 40.00 | 0 | 40.00 |
| 2 Barrels of Flour $8 | 16.00 | 0 | 16.00 |
| 2000 chesnut rails | 20.00 | 0 | 20.00 |
| Total | $551.00 | 0 | $551.00 |
Claims Summary:
This claim is rejected.
Mr. Anderson testifies to his own loyalty generally in reply to questions 33 & 34. He has two witnesses-one of whom "took him to be loyal"-the other says "so far as I could tell he was loyal & so regarded." The names of the witnesses are on the poll list as all for ratifying the ordinance of secession.
Mr. Anderson says-"I was once impressed to haul supplies"-he does not tell when this was-how long he was so employed in aid of the rebels, nor all of the Circumstances. He always resided in a rebel Community, was never threatened or molested, never did anything at any time for the Union Cause refers to no Union man or Military officer to sustain him. -The circumstances are all against him. -His service for the rebels was disloyal & is not explained. -We can not find his loyalty satisfactorily established & therefore reject his claim.
AO Aldis Commrs of Claims
Testimony: Richard Anderson
United States of America, State of Virginia L.L.
I, W.G. Riley a commissioner appointed & designated by the commissioner of claims appointed under the act of Congress of March 3d 1871 to take and record testimony do hereby certify that the reasons for taking the following depositions is & the fact it the matter of claim of Richard Anderson vs: the United States of America, and the witness herein named being first duly sworn answereth as follows.
Ques 1 Witness says: I am 58 years old, reside in Augusta Co. Va & by occupation a Farmer. Have lived in this Co. during my lifetime nearly. Resided in Augusta Co. during the War.
Ques 3 Witness says: I never passed the military or naval lines of the U.S. to enter the rebel lines
4 Witness says: I never took an oath to support the Confed. Govt. in any way
5 Witness says: I took an amnesty oath in 1865, in Staunton.
6 Witness says: I was never directly nor indirectly connected with the civil service of the Confed. Govt.
7 Witness says: Never held office of any kind
9 Witness says: Was never in any capacity in the Military or Naval service of the confederate states
10 Witness says, I was once impressed to haul supplies.
11 Witness says, I never furnished supplies of any kind to any service of the Confed. Govt.
12 Witness says: I never was engaged in the manufacture of any goods of any kind for the Confed. Govt. Had no interest in any contract of any kind
14 Witness says I was never engaged in blockade running & had no interest therein at any time
15 Witness says I did not leave the Confed States during the war
16 Witness says, I was neither owner nor part owner nor had any interest in vessel during the war.
17 Witness says, I was never arrested by any officer of the Confed. Govt.
18 Witness says I had hay taken by the Confederate authorities. Recd. no pay for it.
19 Witness says I was not threatened at any time on account of my union sentiments.
21 Witness says, I contributed nothing in aid of the U.S. Govt. during the war.
23 Witness says, I had no near relatives in either the Union or Confederate Armies
24 Witness says I never owned any Confederate bonds, nor done any thing to support the credit of the Confederate Govt.
25 Witness says I have never given aid or comfort to the rebellion
26 Witness says I was never engaged in making raids into the U.S. from Canada, & never engaged in the destruction of its commerce
27 Witness says: I never was engaged in holding prisoners of war, taken from the US army
28 Witness says, I never was a member of any society for the execution or persecution of any one on acct of loyalty to the U.S.
29 Witness says I never was a paroled prisoner of the U.S.
30 Witness says I never held any office in either the Army or Navy of the U.S. was not educated at either West Point or the Naval Academy
31 Witness says, I never had or used any pass from the Confederate Govt.
32 Witness says: I am not & never was under disabilities imposed by the 14th amendment.
33 Witness says: I sympathized all the time with the Union Cause. Did not vote either for or against the ordinance of secession. After the adoption of the ordinance of secession I remained with the Union Cause. I did not go with my state.
34 Witness says, I do solemnly declare, that I was at all times ready & willing to aid & assist the Union Cause, so far as my power & the circumstances permitted & further this deponent sayeth not. Sept. 8th 1871.
Richard Anderson his mark
Sworn to & subscribed before me this 8th day of Sept 1871
WG Riley United States Commissioner and Special Com: for State of Va.
Testimony: James Beard
James Beard a witness introduced by the claimant to prove the taking & furnishing of the property mentioned in the claimants petition, being duly sworn answers as follows
Ques. 1 Witness says, I am 50 years old, reside in Augusta Co: born & raised here, by occupation a farmer. Lived in Augusta Co. the whole war.
3 Witness says: I saw the horses mentioned in the claimants petition taken, 2 horses.
4 Witness says, The articles were taken June 7th 1864, from the farm of the claimant, by soldiers of Genl. Crook's army.
6 Witness says: There were officers present, don't know their rank or command.
8 Witness says The property was removed by soldiers, the horses were led.
9 Witness says, It was carried to the camp.
10 Witness says Don't Know for what use the property was taken.
11 Witness says, Don't know that any complaint was made.
12 Witness says, No receipt was asked for & none given, that I know of
13 Witness says: The property was taken about 3 o'clock in the day.
15 Witness says: The horses I saw taken were in good condition, dont know their ages, suppose they were worth $150. each. I saw no other property taken. Don't know for what use they were taken
22 Witness says: If the Govt. used them they should pay for them, & further this deponent sayeth not.
Sept 8th 1871
Jas. E Beard
Sworn to & subscribed before me this 8th day of Sept 1871
W.G. Riley United States Commissioner and Special Com. for State of Va.
Testimony: James E. Beard
James E. Beard a witness introduced by the claimant to prove his loyalty being duly sworn, answers as follows.
Ques 1 Witness says I am 50 years old, reside in Augusta Co. Va. by occupation a farmer. Have known the claimant 18 years, reside near him. Saw him often during the war, talked with him frequently, took him to be loyal to the U.S. Govt. during the war he was so regarded by his neighbors. I think he was too loyal to the U.S. Govt. to have been considered loyal to the Confederacy, had it succeeded & further this deponent sayeth not. Sept. 8th 1871
Jas. E. Beard
Sworn to & subscribed before me this 8th day of Sept. 1871
W.G. Riley United States Commissioner and Special Com. for State of Va.
Testimony: John Engleman
Jno. Engleman a witness introduced by the claimant to prove the taking & furnishing of the property named in his petition being duly sworn, answers as follows.
Ques. 1 Witness says: I am 60 years old, reside in Augusta Co. by occupation a farmer. Lived in Augusta Co during the war, near the claimant. Saw him quite often, talked with him about the war. So far as I could tell he was certainly loyal to the U.S. Govt. & he was so regarded by his neighbors. I am of opinion that he was too loyal to the U.S. Govt. to have been loyal to the Confederate Govt. had it succeeded, & further this deponent sayeth not. Sept 8th 1871
John Engleman
Sworn to & subscribed before me this 8th day of Sept. 1871
W.G. Riley United States Commissioner and Special Com. for State of Va.
Testimony: John Engleman
Jno. Engleman a witness introduced to prove the taking & furnishing the property named in the claimants petition being duly sworn, answers as follows.
Ques. 1 Witness says: I am 60 years old, reside in Augusta Co. by occupation a farmer. Did not see the property taken. I am certain it was taken by U.S. soldiers, under the command of Genl. Crook. It was taken about the 7th of June 1864. One brown mare, 9 years old, was worth $120.00. One sorrel mare, 4 or 5 years old, worth $135. One bay horse, 4 or 5 years old, worth $125.00. Did not see the rails taken, but saw where they had been taken & burned. Know nothing about any other property taken. I believe the property was taken for the use of the US Govt. & further this deponent sayeth not
Sept 8th 1871
John Engleman
Sworn to & subscribed before me this 8th day of Sept. 1871
W.G. Riley United States Commissioner and Special Com. for State of Va.
Testimony: Claimant's Brief on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term, 1901-1902.
ESTATE OF RICHARD ANDERSON DECEASED. vs. THE UNITED STATES. NO. 6835, CONG.
STATEMENT.
This claim for stores and supplies alleged to have been taken by the Federal forces during the late Civil War, arose in the County of Augusta, State of Virginia. It was presented to the Commissionens of Claims and was by them rejected because they were not satisfied with claimant's proof of Loyalty. The claim was referred to this Honorable Court on February 15, 1889, under the provisions of the Act approved March 3, 1883, commonly known as the "Bowman Act" and is now before the Court on the usual preliminary inquiry as to the loyalty of claimant.
CLAIMANT'S BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
The following testimony was taken at Staunton, Virginia, in 1871, while the claim was pending before the commissioners:
Richard Anderson, Claimant, testifies: Age 58 Years. Residence Augusta County, Va. Claimant. 0ccupation farmer. Resided in this County nearly all my life. Lived here during the war. Never took an oath to support Confederate Government in any way. Never passed lines of the U. S. to enter Rebel lines. Took amnesty oath in Staunton, in 1865. Was never connected with Civil Service of confederate Government. Never held office of any kind. (P. l). Was never in military or naval service of Confederacy. Was once impressed by Confederates to haul supplies. Never furnished supplies of any kind to Confederacy. Never engaged in manufacture of any goods for Confederacy. Never had any interest in any contract with Confederacy. Never engaged or interested in blockade running. Did not leave Confederate States during War. Had no interest in any vessel during war. Was never arrested by Confederates. Had hay taken by them; received no pay for it. Was not threatened on account of my Union sentiments. Contributed nothing in aid of U. S. Government during War. Had no near relatives in either army. (P. 2). Never owned any confederate bonds; did nothing to support credit of Confederacy. Never gave aid or comfort to Rebellion. Never engaged in making raids into U. S. from Canada, nor in destruction of U. S. commerce. Never held prisoners of war taken from U. S. army. Never a member of any society for persecution of those loyal to U. S. Never was a paroled U. S. prisoner. Never in army or navy of U. S. Never had or asked any Confederate Pass. Never under disabilities imposed by 14 the Amendment. I sympathized all the time with Union cause. Did not vote on Ordinance of (P3) Secession. After adoption of ordinanoe remained with Union cause and did not go with my State. Solemnly declare that I was at all times willing to aid Union cause so far as in my power.(P 4).
James E. Beard testifies: Age 50 years. Residence Augusta Co. Va. Occupation farmer. Have known claimant 18 years. Reside near him. Saw him often during (P. 6) War. Talked with him frequently. Took him to be loyal to the U. S. Government during War; he was so regarded by his neighbors. I think he was too loyal to the U. S. Government to have been considered loyal to the Confederacy had it succeeded. (P. 7).
John Englemen testifies: Age 60 years. Residence Augusta Co. Va. Occupation farmer. Lived here during War, near claimant. Saw him quite often; talked with him about the War. So far as I could tell helms certainly loyal to the U. S. Government, and he was so regarded by his neighbors. I am of opinion that he was too loyal to the U. S. (P. 7) Government to have been loyal to Confederate Government had it succeeded. (P.8).
The following testimony was taken Oct. 21, 1902, at Staunton, Va., under the rules of this court.
J. S. Engleman testifies: Occupation farmer. Age 54 years. Residence Middlebrook, Va. Not interested or related. During 1864 lived with my father, close to Middlebrook, where I live now. Father was John Engleman; he was a Union man. (P. 1). I knew claimant well during War; lived on adjoining farm. He was considered a Union man during war. He was a Union man by his conversations throughout the war. I was at his house frequently during War - two or three times a week. I knew of his hiding Union men during War - W. W. Casson and R. A. Helms; Mr. Casson and Mr. Helm were Union men. Claimant's property was taken in June, 1864, by Crook and Averill, of Hunter's Division. Claimant harbored Union men and aided all he could. (P. 2). Claimant was not in Confederate service; he was too old. He never furnished supplies of any kind to Confederacy that I know of. He hauled for Confederacy, in fall of 1861; he was pressed to do so; he was bitterly opposed to doing it. "He rared about it, and swore and went on terrible, but he was forced to do it." Can't tell just how long he was gone on the trip - about a week or 10 days - just from Staunton to Monterey. Of course it was unsafe for a man to do open acts for Union, but he did not care for that; he expressed his opinion anyway. There were a good many Union people in this neighborhood and a good many more who were afraid to express their opinions. (P. 3). Some were injured by being threatened and by property being taken from them. They were Union men and Confederates took their property. Can't just name these Union men. Their property was pressed through Commissaries of Confederates. Union authorities might have taken property from Confederate sympathizers but did not - there was but the one raid. Of course a raid passing through takes property as it goes. (P. 4). I was not present when claimant's team was impressed by Confederates. Tom Shumate impressed the team. Heard claimant say that Shumate had impressed his team. Heard him say so the same evening. All I know about it is what claimant told.
W. W. Casson testifies: Occupation farmer. Age 74 years. Live near Arbor Hill, Augusta County. Not interested or related. I knew claimant during War and he was as good a Union man as you would find in the Northern states anywhere. I staid with him I suppose a month and a half during that time; I did a good deal of shoe-making there. I was a Union man; that was the reason I was hiding around; I staid there awhile and then went to the mountains. He was hiding and protecting me because I was a Union man; if I had been a Secession man he would have driven me off. (P. 6). Five of McCausland's Cavalry rode down there; said they had had nothing to eat for 3 or 4 days, and wanted to get some hay and corn to feed their horses. He asked their command and When they told him he said "Get up the road; we have got nothing here for you." They looked into the hay mow and saw some hay; one of them said "There is hay here, we'll get some". Claimant said "If you go in there you wont get out". He went after my Colts revolver and as soon as they saw that they got out. Union army got some hay and grain and grub, too. He made no ado about it; they were the right stripe. Don't recollect to a certainty about claimant's team being impressed by Confederates; Union forces did not impress anything; I don't know about (P.7). Confederates. I was present when MoCausland's men came there. Claimant voted against Secession; he told me, and several gentlemen told me. Am sure he told me so. (P. 8).
J. B. Cale testifies: Occupation farmer. Age 63. Residence Arbor Hill, Va. Not interested or related. Knew claimant during War; lived within about a mile of him. He was a Union man. He was counted as a Union man in the neighborhood generally. Don't know of anything showing his Union sentiments more than he talked in favor of the Union and expressed his sentiments that way. I was a Confederate,and he was recognized by Confederate soldiers as a Union man. (P. 9). I entered Confederate army in March, 1862, and was discharged in Feb. 1863. Can't tell how often I saw claimant daring War- right frequently. Can't say whether I was at his house while I was in army. He had no sons in Confederate army. I talked with claimant during War and he expressed himself as in favor of Union army. (P. 10).
D. E. Beard testifies: Occupation farmer. Residence Middlebrook. Not interested or related. Knew claimant during War; lived about 1 mile from him. He was regarded in the community as a Union man. He always talked favorably to the Union side. I was in Confederate service about 11 months in last year of the War. I think he was considered a Union man by everybody that knew him. (P. 11). His team was pressed to make a trip out about McDowell or Monterey, but I don't know by whom. About that time a great many teams were impressed for hauling in direction of Monterey. I was not present when his team was taken. Heard claimant say it was impressed into service of Confederates. He was a farmer. There were no other Richard Anderson's in this vicinity during War, that I know of. I was not at his house while I was in the army but have been in his house frequently. He was opposed to his team being impressed. (P. 12).
W. D. Hemp testifies: Occupation farmer. Age 73. Residence Middlebrook, Va. Not interested or related. Lived less than 2 miles from claimant during War; knew him. It was generally said of him that he was a Union man. I talked with him a good many times about the War, and as a general thing he was cursing the Confederacy. I was not with him all the time; I could not say what he did. I only know what he said and that he did nothing for Confederates only what was impressed. (P. 13). I was a Union man. I did not vote at all; they said if a man didn't vote for Secession he couldn't vote at all. Claimant's team was impressed by Confederates to do some hauling. He was not willing for them to use it. Union men had to be careful; they had to keep back; they couldn't be bold in what they had to do or say. I was not present when his team was impressed. I know it was impressed because a man named Shumate was around impressing the teams and came from there over to our house and pressed our team; he said he had pressed Mr. Anderson's and Mr. Beard's and several others. Shumate wanted to furnish a Government driver but claimant would not let his team go (P. 14). with a Government driver. The team was taken second year of the War and was gone about 10 days. (P. 15).
SUMMARY.
Claimant testifies that he sympathized with the Union cause; that he did not vote on ordinance of Secession; that he did not go with his state after the adoption of the Ordinance of Secession, but continued to adhere to the Union. Concerning the testimony of the claimant and of his witnesses taken before the Special Commissioner, we have to state that the extreme brevity of the answers would seem indicative of a desire on part of the Commissioner to complete his task as quickly as possible rather than a wish to draw out material facts. A casual reading of the testimony so taken will show beyond any doubt that the answers were cut very short as they were taken down. The original claimant is now dead, which accounts for our failure to have him testify before the Court. We make this explanation at this point in order that the Court may understand claimant's apparent failure to testify to very much in his own behalf.
JAMES E. BEARD testifies that he saw claimant frequently during the war and talked with him, and took him to be loyal; that witness, thinks claimant was too loyal to U. S. to have proven loyalty to Confederacy.
JOHN ENGLEMAN testifies to the same effect and states that claimant was regarded by his neighbors as a loyal man.
J. S. ENGLEMAN testifies that claimant was considered a loyal man; that his conversations during the war showed his loyal sympathies; that he harbored Union men; that he "rared about" having his team impressed for service by Confederates. That it was unsafe for one to do anything openly for the Union but that claimant expressed his opinion notwithstanding. Heard claimant say that Tom Shumate impressed his team.
W. W. CASSON testifies that he knew claimant during War and that claimant was as good a Union man as could have been found in the Northern states anywhere. Witness staid with him for a month and a half during that time, while he was hiding around; that claimant was hiding and protecting witness because witness was a Union man; that witness would have been driven off by claimant had he been a Secession man; that claimant drove off 5 Confederate Cavalrymen who stopped at his place for supplies; that claimant told witness he voted against Secession and other men told witness the same thing about vote of claimant.
J. B. CALE testifies that he lived within a mile of claimant during War; that claimant was counted in the neighborhood generally as a Union man; that he showed his sentiments by his conversations, and was recognized by Confederates as being a Union man. Witness talked with claimant during War and claimant expressed himself as a Union man, in favor of the Union army.
D. E. BEARD testifies that he lived about a mile from claimant during War and knew him; that claimant was regarded in the community as a Union man and always talked favorably to Union side; he was considered a Union man by all who knew him. Heard claimant say his team had been impressed by Confederates; about that time many teams were impressed for hauling. Claimant was opposed to this use of his team.
W. D. HEMP testifies that he lived within 2 miles of claimant during War and knew him; that it was said generally of claimant that he was a Union man; that witness talked with him a good many times and as a general thing claimant was cursing the Confederacy; that claimant did, nothing voluntarily for Confederates; that witness was a Union man but did not vote at all; that they said if a man did not vote for Secession he could not vote at all. At time claimant's team was impressed by Shumate, for Confederates, witness' team was also impressed by Shumate.
From all the foregoing it is apparent that from the beginning until the end of the War claimant expressed himself as an adherent of the Union cause, and gave no voluntary aid to the Confederates. The failure of claimant to vote on the question of secession is explained by the testimony of Mr. Hemp, referred to on this page, from which it appears that it was stated that those who would not vote for Secession could not vote at all. It is reasonable to suppose that the witness Mr. Casson confused claimant's not voting for Secession with a positive vote against it, or else referred to the first election.
It is seen that claimant assisted Union men to hide from Confederate conscript officers and that this assistance was given as a matter of principle; that he drove from his place Confederate soldiers who came there for supplies; that he was considered as a Union man by the Confederates. All these facts, in connection with the further fact that not one fact or circumstance appears tending to show in the remotest degree anything at all unfavorable to claimant's loyalty, go to show beyond question that this claimant should be found loyal. In view of the extreme meagerness of the testimony submitted on loyalty before the Commissioners we can express no surprise at their unfavorable finding, but the testimony taken before this court puts an altogether different aspect upon the case and shows that an injustice was done claimant in the former case.
There can be no doubt but that this claimant was loyal and the finding of this Honorable Court should be to that effect.
Respectfully submitted, Moyers and Consaul, Attorneys for Claimant
Testimony: Defendant's Brief on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
Estate of Richard Anderson, deceased, v. The United States. No. 6835 Cong.
DEFENDANT'S BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
Statement.
This claim is for property alleged to have been taken on the 7th day of June 1864 by command of Genl. Crook, from decedent's place in the vicinity of Middlebrook, Augusta County, Va.
The claim was presented to the Southern Claims Commision and by it disallowed upon the following ground:
Mr. Anderson testifies to his own loyalty generally in reply to questions 33 & 34. He has two witnesses-one of whom "took him to be loyal"-the other says "so far as I could tell he was loyal & so regarded." The names of the witnesses are on the poll list as all for ratifying the ordinance of secession.
Mr. Anderson says-"I was once impressed to haul supplies"-he does not tell when this was-how long he was so employed in aid of the rebels, nor all of the Circumstances. He always resided in a rebel Community, was never threatened or molested, never did anything at any time for the Union Cause refers to no Union man or Military officer to sustain him. -The circumstances are all against him. -His service for the rebels was disloyal & is not explained. -We can not find his loyalty satisfactorily established & therefore reject his claim.
The Confederate Archives of the Treasury Department disclose no evidence touching the loyalty or disloyalty of decedent. The archives of the War Department show two vouchers signed Richard Anderson by his mark, one dated at Staunton, Va. for hay and the other at Richmond for lumber, hardware etc.
The evidence appears to have been correctly abstracted.
Argument.
While the claim was pending before the Southern Claims Commission decedent testified that he lived in Augusta Co., during the war; never passed the military lines; took the amnesty oath in 1865 in Staunton; he was once impressed to haul supplies for the Confederates; did not leave the Confederate States during the war; confederatecommands took hay but he received no pay for it; that he contributed nothing to the Government; that he sympathized with the Union cause; did not vote either for or against the ordinance and after its adoption remained with the Union.
James E. Beard testified that he "took him to be loyal to the United States Government during the war," referring to claimant; that he was so regarded by his neighbors.
Since the case was referred to this Court J.S. Engleman testified that decedent was considered a loyal man; that he hauled harbored Union men during the war; that claimant hauled for the Confederate Army in the fall of 1861; that he was required to do so by the Confederates; that he was bitterly opposed to doing it, swore and went on terrible; that he was engaged about a week or ten days upon this trip; witness was not present when decedent's teams were pressed into the service; that he merely heard of the transaction.
W. W. Casson testified that decedent hid witness because he was a Union man; that decedent ordered five Confederate Cavalry to leave his place when they came for supplies; that he went after his revolver to force them to leave when they got out; that the Union troops got supplies; does not recollect certainly as to impressment of decedent's team into the Confederate service; that decedent told him that he had voted for the Union.
J.B. Cahill testifies that decedent was recognized as a Union man; that witness was in the Confederate Army; that he saw decedent during the war; that decedent always expressed himself in favor of the Union.
D.E. Beard testified that decedent was regarded as a Union man; that witness was in the Confederate service about 11 months; that decedent was considered a Union man by everyone; that decedent's team was pressed into the Confederate service; that he heard that it was; that there was no other Richard Anderson in his neighborhood during the war; that he saw decedent frequently.
W.D. Hemp testified that decedent was loyal and reiterates what the other witnesses have stated about merely hearing that decedent's teams were pressed into the Confederate service.
Conclusion.
Decedent lived in the hot bed of rebellion during the war; he appears to have been unmolested or uninjured and while attempt is made to show that he was a Union man it also appears that others who were Union in sentiment were compelled to hide in his house. If others were required to hide because of their sympathies certainly it would seem that decedent's sympathies must have been of such indifferent character as to enable him to deceive the confederates and thus keep open house. Furthermore it appears that decedent used his teams in the service of the Confederacy and outside of certain heresay testimony there is nothing before the court which would show that such service was not voluntary. The statement that decedent refused to feed five Confederate Cavalrymen because of his loyal sympathies and drove them off at the point of a revolver, is too improbable for consideration. As giving an idea of the value of the testimony, Casson, one of the witnesses, testifies that decedent told him that he voted for the Union, while decedent, who testified shortly after the war, says that he did not vote at all.
It is submitted that in the absence of any evidence showing any loyal sympathies to the Federal Army and with the evidence that he rendered service to the Confederacy as well as sold them hay, that this court should not find him loyal throughout the late war of the rebellion.
E.C. Brandenburg Assistant Attorney.
Testimony: Claimant's Reply Brief on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term 1901-1902.
Estate of Richard Anderson, Deceased, vs. THE UNITED STATES. No. 6835 Congressional.
CLAIMANT'S REPLY BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
This reply is addressed to the brief filed herein by the defense on December 12, 1902.
A greater portion of defendant's brief consists of excerpts from the testimony, which testimony has already been fully abstracted and presented in our original brief. We have no criticism to pass upon defendant's brief except the conclusion thereof, which is entirely erroneous.
It clearly appears in the testimony that Claimant harbored Union men on his place, while they were endeavoring to evade service in the Confederate army. It would seem that such action as this would point very strongly to Claimant's loyalty, but learned counsel for the defense maintains that this circumstance points exactly in the opposite direction and that the mere fact that Claimant was permitted by the Confederate authorities to remain upon this earth and enjoy the blessings of good health, is almost conclusive evidence that he was disloyal to the Union. We leave it to this Honorable Court to trace, if possible, the logic of this conclusion at which opposing counsel arrives.
The defense also lays great stress on the fact "that decedent used his teams in the service of the Confederacy", and asserts that outside of certain hearsay testimony, there is nothing before the Court, showing said service to be voluntary. Let us see what the facts are concerning this.
The Claimant himself testifies that he was once impressed to haul supplies. J.S. Engleman, who lived on an adjoining farm, testifies of this occurence, that "he rared about it, and swore and went on terrible, but he was forced to do it"; that the Claimant told witness, Thomas Shoemate had impressed his team. D.E. Beard, who lived near Claimant, testifies that at the time Claimant's team was impressed, a great many other teams were also impressed in that vicinity. W.D. Hemp testifies that the Confederate officer Shoemate came to witness's house, pressed the team of witness and told witness at that time that he had impressed Claimant's team with others. This evidence is not hearsay, and opposing counsel is well aware of this fact. The fact that testimony concerns statements made by others, by no means constitutes that testimony hearsay. The statement made by Claimant, we submit, be admitted in evidence as part of the resgestae, and the evidence that other teams were impressed at the same time and place, and that the Confederate officer Shoemate stated that he had just impressed Claimant's team, all constitute proper evidence as tending to throw the light of surrounding circumstancess upon the transaction in question.
Counsel for the defense attacks the weight of the testimony of W.W. Casson because witness testifies that decedent said he voted for the Union, while decedent says that he did not vote at all. It will be observed that the defense endeavors to make a flat contradiction here. There is absolutely no contradiction, however, in the testimony if it is carefully and properly read. Let us examine the record upon this point.
Claimant says that he did not vote on the Ordinance of Secession. Mr. Casson says that Claimant told witness that he voted against Secession. Where is the contradiction between these two statements? There were two elections upon the matter of Secession, and Claimant's statement that he did not vote at the second election certainly does not negate a statement that he voted for Union candidates at the first election.
Counsel for the defense dismisses with a slighting remark the testimony showing that Claimant refused to furnish suplies to Confederate cavalry men and drove them from his place, but we submit that the testimony concering this happening, not being impeached in any way, this circumstance cannot be brushed aside with a wave of the hand. The fact that this Claimant declined to aid these Confederates and drove them from his place is very strongly corroborative of the other testimony in the case, relative to Claimant's sympathies. We did not expect counsel for the defense to elaborate upon this portion of the record, in view of the fact that it is strongly in favor of Claimant's loyalty.
Every act and word of Claimant, from the beginning until the end is indicative of nothing but constant loyalty to the Union cause. Nothing can be made out of a small voucher for hay taken by the Confederates. Claimant testifies years ago that the Confederates took hay from him, and made this statement at a time when he had no knowledge of any such voucher. There is absolutely nothing disclosed in this record against Claimant's loyalty, while the testimony of Claimant and of seven other witnesses shows beyond any reasonable doubt that Claimant was a Union man during the entire war. We simply ask that this Honorable Court give careful consideration to the testimony in the case, resting confident that but one conclusion can be reached upon the record, and that conclusion must be in favor of Claimant's loyalty.
Respectfully submitted, Moyers & Consaul Attorneys for Claimant.
Testimony: Claimant's Petition to the Court
PETITION. TO THE HONORABLE THE COURT OF CLAIMS:
Your petitioner, John R. Fauver, respectfully represents to this Honorable Court: That he is the sole representative and devisee of RICHARD ANDERSON, deceased; that during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion said Richard Anderson was a resident of the County of Augusta, State of Virginia; that during said war, the Military Forces of the United States, under proper authority, took from said Decedent, for the use of the United States Army, quartermaster stores and supplies, of the kinds and values below stated, to-wit:
Taken on or about June 7, 1864, by troops under command of Generals Crook and Averill, Hunter's Division: 3 Horses, at $150.00 each, $450.00. 2,000 Chestnut rails, 20.00. TOTAL, $470.00.
That the claim of said Decedent for said stores and supplies was presented to the Southern Claims Commission but was by said Commission rejected for the reason that said Commission was not satisfied of claimant's loyalty; that your petitioner, knowing said decision to be unjust, petitioned the Congress of the United States for relief, and said claim was referred to this Honorable Court on or about February 15, 1889, by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives, for a finding of facts in accordance with the provisions of the Act approved March 3, 1883, commonly known as the Bowman Act;
That said Decedent, Richard Anderson, was during said war loyal to the Government of the United States, as has been hereto-fore found by this Honorable Court; that said claim has not been assigned; that petitioner, as sole representative and devisde as aforesaid, is the sole owner thereof; that it is correct and just;
WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays that, When the facts concerning the justice of this claim shall have been found by this Court that they be certified to the House of Representatives, together with the fact of Decedent's loyalty, as provided by said Act of March 3, 1883.
John R. Fauver Sole Heir and Devisee of Richard Anderson, dec'd, by Chas F. Consaul Attorney-in-Fact.
District of Columbia, City of Washington. ss.
Chas. F. Consaul, being first duly sworn according to law, deposes and says: that he is the attorney for John R. Fauver, named as petitioner in the above petition; that affiant has read said petition and knows the contents thereof; that the allegations in said petition contained are true to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
Chas F Consaul
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day of February, A. D. 1903. My commission expires Sept. 30, 1906. Francis L. Neubeck Notary Public.
Testimony: Claimant's Brief on Merits
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term 1902-1903.
Heir of Richard Anderson, decd., vs. THE UNITED STATES. No. 6835 Congressional.
This claim, for stores and supplies alleged to have been taken by Federal troops from Richard Anderson, now deceased, arose in the County of Augusta, State of Virginia. It was presented to the Southern Claims Commission, but was by said Commission rejected, as the Commissioners were not satisfied with proof of Claimant's loyalty. It was referred to this Court under the provisions of the Act, approved March 3, 1883, commonly known as the Bowman Act. Upon the usual preliminary inquiry, the Claimant, Richard Anderson, deceased, has been held loyal by the Court and the case is now before the Court upon merits.
The real party in interest at the present time is John R. Fauver, who claims as sole representative and also as residuary legatee of said Richard Anderson, deceased. The title of Fauver will appear from the record.
The claim as presented in the petition now before the Court is for the following property:- 3 Horses at $150.00 each, $450.00. 2000 Chestnut rails, 20.00. Total $470.00.
The following testimony was taken at Staunton, Augusta County, Virginia, September 8, 1871, while the claim was pending before the Commissioners of Claims:-
JAMES BEARD testified: Age: 50. Residence: Augusta County, Virginia, where I was born and raised. Occupation: Farmer. Lived here during the war. Saw two horses mentioned in Claimant's petition taken. They were taken June 7, 1864, from Claimant's farm by soldiers of General Crook's army. There were officers present; don't know their ranks or commands. The property was removed by soldiers, the horses being led. The property was taken to the camp. Don't know what use was made of it or that any complaint was made. No receipt was asked for (P. 5) and none given that I know of. The property was taken about 3 o'clock in the day. The horses that I saw taken were in good condition; don't know their ages; suppose they were worth $150.00 each. Don't know for what they were taken. I saw no other property taken. If the Government used them, they should pay for them. (P. 6).
JOHN ENGLEMAN testified: Age: 60. Residence: Augusta County, Virginia, where I lived during the war near Claimant. Occupation: Farmer. (P. 7). Did not see the property taken. I am certain that it was taken by United States soldiers under the command of General Crook, about June 7, 1864. One brown mare, 9 years old, was worth $120.00. One sorrel mare, 4 or 5 years old, was worth $135.00. One bay horse 4 or 5 years old, was worth $125.00. Did not see the rails taken, but saw where they had been taken and burned. Know nothing about the taking of any other property. I believe that the property was taken for the use of the United States Government.
Depositions were taken at Staunton, Viriginia. October 21, 1902, under the rules of this Court, which relate principally to the loyalty of the deceased claimant, Richard Anderson, but in which some statements were made relative to the taking of the property. These statements are below presented.
J.S. ENGLEMAN testified: Occupation: Farmer. Age: 54 years. Residence: Middle Brook, Virginia. Not interested or related. During the war, lived with my father John Engleman near Middle Brook. (P. 1). Lived on adjoining farm to Claimant. The property was taken June 7, 1864, by Generals Crook and Averill, Hunter's Division. (P. 2).
W.W. CASON testifies: Knew Claimant during the war and stayed with him about 1 1/2 months. (P. 6). The Union army got hay, corn and grup from the Claimant. He made no ado about it; they were the right stripe. (P. 7).
Since the reference of the case to the court the following testimony was taken at Staunton, Va., February 5, 1903:
J. S. Engleman, testifies; age 54; residence Middlebrook, Va., not interested or related. I was acquainted with the claimant, Richard Anderson, during the war and am the same witness that testified on loyalty in October last. (p. 1). During the war I lived about a quarter of a mile from the claimant. At the time his property was taken by the Federal forces, I was sitting on my father's porch and saw three horses taken out of claimant's field. They were in tolerably fair condition, one brown mare about nine years old, one sorrel mare about three or four years old, one bay horse about the same age. I do not know that there was much difference in the horses; they were worth $150 each. One was older than the others but was worth as much. I also saw two thousand rails taken from claimant's place worth about $1.25 a hundred. I heard that flour and bacon had been taken, but did not see it. Crook and Averill were in command when the property was taken. The men taking the property were dressed in the uniform of Federal soldiers. They came right out of a Union camp and took the horses into camp, as far as I could see. They went around the hill, and I could not see them further. (p. 1). My father's farm adjoined that of claimant. My father lost property at the same time at the hands of the Federal forces. Claimant died some years after the war and his wife Rebecca Anderson some years later. Mr. John R. Fauver who is present to-day is a grandson of Richard Anderson and the person mentioned in the will of Richard Anderson as residuary legatee after the death of the widow. Claimant died leaving one child, a daughter, the mother of John R. Fauver, and her husband is also dead.
Cross-examination.
I was about a quarter of a mile away when I saw the horses taken, but could see them taken and recognized them as claimant's. I have not had the best of eyesight all my life, am nearsighted.
Re-direct examination.
The horses when taken were between claimant's house and my father's, about half way between the two houses. I could certainly see these horses taken and I knew they were claimant's horses. (ps. 3 & 4).
Later this witness was recalled and testifies as follows: Claimant's property was taken on the 7th of June 1864, about three o'clock in the evening.
Cross-examination.
There were no Confederate troops camped in claimant's neighborhood shortly before the taking of the property. They camped there several days afterwards. (p. 8). No portion of the Confederate Army had to my knowledge passed through claimant's neighborhood within 30 days before the 7th of June 1864. During the war, claimant resided near Middlebrook, about nine miles from Staunton and twenty-three miles from Piedmont.
John P. Cale, testifies; are 61; occupation, farmer; not interested or related. I lived about two miles from claimant during the war; was acquainted during that period. The morning after the property had been taken, I was on the place and saw where they had taken the rails and burnt them. Anderson, the claimant, told me then they had also taken his Horses. There were about two thousand rails taken. Also heard that some flour and bacon was taken. (p. 5).
W. D. Hemp, testifies; age 74; farmer; not interested or related. I lived about a mile and a half from claimant during the war and was well acquainted with him. Some of his rails were burned. I did not see them burning. I saw that the fence which had been there a few days before was gone and saw the ashes. Did not see them taking the horses. He had the horses at his home a day or so before the army came there and the next day after the army passed he did not have any and he told me they had taken them. I don't know about the flour and bacon but I heard them say the next day after the army camped there that they had taken a lot of flour and bacon. (p. 7) It was taken by the army under Crook and Averill in June 1864, but I do not know the exact date. They put the number of rails down at 2,000.
Cross-examination.
All I know about the taking of this property is what some one told me. The army came one right to claimant's neighborhood and left the next morning. The Confederate Army was not in that vicinity either shortly before or after the taking.
J. R. Fauver, testifies; age 40; residence, Middlebrook, Virginia, farmer; grandson and sole heir of claimant. I am the grandson of Richard Anderson, the claimant, and am the same grandson mentioned in his will and am claiming the benefit of this claim if allowed. Rebecca Anderson, widow of Richard Anderson, died sometime about 1884 or 1885 and Richard Anderson died about 1880. My mother was the only child of Richard Anderson and she died when I was about six years old. My father died about eight years ago and I am now the sole heir of my mother and the sole heir and devisee of my grandfather Richard Anderson, the claimant.
(Note). Attached to the testimony of J. R. Fauver and marked exhibit "A" will be found a duly certified copy of the last will and testament of Richard Anderson, deceased, which reads as follows:
First: I direct that all my just debts, and funeral expenses he paid as soon after my decease as possible.
Second. I will and bequeath that all my property, both real and personal is to be held by my wife, Rebecca Anderson during her lifetime, and at her decease to go to my grandson John R. Fauver, to he held by him and his heirs forever.
Following the will will be found a certificate of the Clerk of the Court showing that the above will was duly filed and probated
ITEMIZED SUMMARY.
H0RSES.
3 Horses at $150.00 each, $450.00.
JAMES BEARD testified: Saw two horses taken from Claimant in June, 1864, by soldiers of General Crook's army; officers were present; horses taken to camp. Horses in good condition. Suppose they were worth $150.00 each. (P. 1).
JOHN ENGLEMAN testified: Did not see property taken, but am certain it was taken by soldiers under General Crook, about (P. 1) June 7, 1864; one brown mare worth $120.00, one sorrel mare worth $135.00 and one bay horse worth $125.00. Believe that they were taken for the use of the army. (P. 2).
J.S. ENGLEMAN testified: The property was taken June 7, 1864, by Generals Crook and Averill. (P. 2).
J.S. ENGLEMAN testified: Lived about one-fourth of a mile from Claimant. Was standing on my father's porch and saw three horses taken. They were in fair condition. One brown mare, one sorrel mare and one bay horse, worth $150.00. Crook and Averill were in command when property was taken. The men, taking the property were dressed in Federal uniforms, came from the Union camp and took the horses into camp, so far as I could see. Was living on place adjoining that of Claimant. (P. 3). Was about one-fourth of a mile away when I saw horses taken, but could see them taken, and recognized them as Claimant's. The horses were taken about one-half way between Claimant's house and my father's house. I could certainly see the horses taken and knew they were Claimant's horses. (P. 4).
W.D. HEMP testified: Did not see the horses taken. Claimant had the horses a day or so before the army came and the day after the army passed, he did not have any, and he told me that they had been taken. The army came one night and left the next morning. (P. 5).
From the evidence, it is clear that three horses were taken from Claimant, and it would seem that they were reasonable worth the price charged $150.00, but we are aware of the fact that the Court will guided in estimating the amount to be allowed by the prices then being paid by the Quartermaster Department.
We think, therefore, that the item of this claim should be correctly stated as follows:- 3 Horses at $150.00 each, $450.00.
RAILS.
2000 Chestnut Rails, $20.00.
JOHN ENGLEMAN testified: Did not see the property taken, but am certain it was taken by troops under command of General Crook (P. 1) about June 7, 1864. Did not see the rails taken but saw where they had been taken and burned. (P. 2).
J.S. ENGLEMAN testified: I saw 2000 rails taken from Claimant's place worth 1.25 per hundred. The men taking the property were in Federal uniforms and came from the Union camp. (P. 3).
JOHN P. CALE testified: Lived about two miles from Claimant. (P. 4). The morning after the property had been taken, and I saw on the place where they had been taken and burned. There were about 2000 rails taken. (P. 5).
W.D. HEMP testified: Some of Claimant's rails were burned; I did not see them burning, but saw that the fence which had been there a few days before was gone and saw the ashes. They put the number of rails down at 2000. (P. 5).
It is evident that the rails were taken as charged for and used as fuel by the Federal troops, and this item of the claim is therefore correctly stated as follows:- 2000 rails (Chestnut), $20.00.
The items of the claim should therefore be correctly stated as follows, to-wit:- 3 Horses at $150.00 each, $450.00. 2000 Chestnut Rails, 20.00. Total, $470.00.
Respectfully submitted, Moyers & Consaul Attorneys for Claimant.
Testimony: Defendant's Brief on Merits
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES.
Heirs of Richard Anderson, dec'd., v. The United States No. 6835 Cong.
DEFENDANT'S BRIEF ON MERTIS
Statement.
This claim is for the value of three horses and 2,000 chestnut rails, amounting to $470, alleged to have been taken from decedent on or about the 7th day of June 1864, by soldiers under the command of Generals Crook, Averill and Hunter.
The claim was presented to the Southern Claims Commission and by it disallowed on the ground of failure in the proof of loyalty.
Subsequently the claim was presented to the House of Representatives and referred to this court pursuant to the provisions of the Bowman Act. Thereafter the claim was presented to this court and decedent found loyal.
There is nothing in the papers to show that letters of administration had been taken out on decedent's estate.
Argument.
3 horses at $150 each, $450.
Beard testifies that he saw two horses taken on June 7, 1864, from decedent's place, by soldiers of Gen. Crook's army; they were in good condition and supposed they were worth $150 each.
John Engleman testifies that he didn't see the property taken and accordingly his testimony as to the same is irrelevant.
J. S. Engleman testifies that the property was taken June 7, 1864 by Generals Crook and Averill of Hunter's division but when cross-examined said that he heard that it was impressed. Subsequently this witness testifies that he was standing on his father's porch and saw three horses taken out of decedent's field. They were in fair condition, worth about $150 each. The horses were taken into camp; that he was about a quarter of a mile away when he saw the horses taken but was able to recognize them.
Cason testifies but to property not claimed in the petition.
Neither Cale nor Hemp saw the horses taken.
As to this item, while a number of witnesses have given testimony, Beard and J. S. Engleman alone testify as to the taking. The other witnesses merely testify as to what they heard. The property was doubtless taken though the evidence is not clear as to the command that took the same nor as to the value, which seems to be greatly exaggerated.
2,000 chestnut rails, $20.
As to this item J. S. Engleman testifies that he saw 2,000 rails taken from decedent's place and they were worth $1.25 per hundred. Three other witnesses testify in a general way as to this property but none of them actually saw them taken and merely speak from hearsay. Accordingly, in the absence of any corroborative evidence this item should be disallowed.
Respectfully submitted. E.C. Brandenburg Assistant Attorney.
Testimony: Claimant's Reply Brief on Merits
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term 1902-1903.
HEIR OF RICHARD ANDERSON, DECD. vs., THE UNITED STATES. No. 6835 Congressional.
CLAIMANT'S REPLY BRIEF ON MERITS.
This brief is in reply to that filed herein by the Defense on March 12, 1903.
To those statements contained on page 1 of Defendant's brief we can take no exceptions.
Referring to the statement at the top of page 2 that there is nothing to show that letters of administration should be taken out on decedent's estate, we invite attention to the fact that the original claimant died testate, by reason of which fact, in the ordinary course of events, letters of administration would not be issued.
H0RSES.
Referring to the testimony of J.S. Engleman who witnessed the actual taking of three horses, we would direct attention to the fact that Mr. Engleman states that he lived about one-fourth of a mile from Claimant, and that the horses were taken from a point midway beyween his house and Claimant's house, and that he certainly saw the horses and knew that they were Claimant's horses. While it is true that the witness W.D. Hemp did not see the horses taken, he says that he knew that Claimant had the horses at his place just before the army came and that after the army passed, the horses were gone. Certainly the disappearance of these horses simultaneously with the passage of the troops is strong circumstantial evidence to show that the troops and horses disappeared together, in which case the presumption is that the horses were in charge of the troops. On page 3, Defendant's counsel concedes that the property was doubtless taken, but alleges that the value claimed $150.00 each, would seem to be greatly exaggerated. During the war and especially in 1864 at which time this property was taken, almost anything in the shape of a serviceable animal was worth the price charged, which we do not think to be an exaggerated price by any means.
RAILS.
As to the taking of these rails as fuel, we have the testimony of one eye-witness to the taking, and in addition the testimony of two witnesses who saw that the rails had been taken and burned.
There can be no doubt but that this is a just and meritorious claim and that an allowance should be made substantially as prayed.
Respectfully submitted, Moyers & Consaul Attorneys for Claimant. Of Counsel.
Testimony: Claimant's Requests for Findings of Fact
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term 1902-1903.
Heir of Richard Anderson, decd., vs. THE UNITED STATES. No. 6835 Congressional.
CLAIMANT'S REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS OF FACT.
The Claimant, considering the facts hereinafter set forth to be proven, and deeming them material to the due presentation of the case in the findings of fact, requests the Court to find the same as follows, to-wit:-
I. Claimant's decedent Richard Anderson resided during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion in the County of Augusta, State of Virginia, and throughout said war remained loyal to the Government of the United States.
See:- Loyalty finding, filed January 12, 1903.
II. Said Richard Anderson died testate about 1880. By the terms of his will, all of his property was bequeathed to his wife, Rebecca Anderson, during her lifetime, remainder to testator's grandson John R. Fauver and his heirs forever. Said Rebecca Anderson, widow of the testator, died about 1884, leaving all title under said will vested in said John R. Fauver, the present petitioner.
See:- Testimony of J.S. Engleman, Ps. 3 to 4, Abstract; J.R. Fauver, P. 6 of Abstract; Certified copy of probated will of Richard Anderson.
III. During said war, there were taken from Claimant's decedent by the Military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the United States army, Quartermaster stores and supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to-wit:- 3 Horses at $150.00 each, $450.00. 2000 Rails (Chestnut), 20.00. Total, $470.00.
See:- Testimony of James Beard, P. 1 of Abstract; John Engleman, P. 1 to 2, Abstract; J.S. Engleman, P. 2 of Abstract; W.W. Cason, P. 2 of Abstract; J.S. Engleman, Ps. 3 to 4, Abstract; John P. Cale, Ps. 4 to 5, of Abstract;
IV. No payment appears to have been made for said property or any part thereof.
Respectfully submitted, Moyers and Consaul Attorneys for Claimant.
Testimony: Findings of Fact
COURT OF CLAIMS. (Congressional Case No. 6835.)
John R. Fauver, sole heir and legatee of Richard Anderson, dec'd vs. The United States
STATEMENT OF CASE:
The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the Court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the fifteenth day of February, 1889. 189.
On a preliminary inquiry the Court, on the twelfth day of January, 1903, 189, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war.
The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the sixteenth day of March, 1903. 189. Moyers and Consaul, Esq, appeared for claimant, and the Attorney General, by E. C. Brandenburg Esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States.
The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is the sole representative and devisee of Riohard Anderson, deceased; that during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion said Richard Anderson was a resident of the County of Augusta, State of Virginia; that during said war, the military forces of the United States, under proper authority, took from said Decedent, for use of the United States Army, quartermaster stores and supplies, of the kinds and values below stated, to-wit-
Taken on or about June 7,1864, by troops under command of Generals Crook and Averill, Hunters Divisions 3 Horses, at $150.00 each, $450.00. 2,000 Chestnut Rails, 20.00. TOTAL, $470.00.
The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT.
I. The claimant herein, John R. Fauver, is the sole heir and legatee of Richard Anderson, deceased.
II. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Augusta county, State of Virginia, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of three hundred and eighty dollars ($380.00), for which no payment appears to have been made.
Bibliographic Information : Southern Claims Commission: Claim of Richard Anderson, September 8, 1871, Claim No. 1725, Source copy consulted: National Archives, Washington, D.C., RG 123, Congressional Jurisdiction #6835.
