Summary: Engleman's claim for more than a thousand dollars worth of livestock, produce, and household goods was disallowed by the Commissioners in 1872 on the grounds that he voted for the Ordinance of Secession. When appealling this decision to the Congressional Court of Claims between 1893 and 1897, Engleman and his heirs went to great lengths to prove that he had not, in fact, voted for secession. The Court of Claims ruled in 1896 that Engleman had been loyal to the United States, but it is not clear that his heirs ever received compensation.
Items Claimed:
| Item Claimed: | Amount Claimed: | Amount Allowed: | Amount Disallowed: |
| Two Horses @ $175. Each | $350.00 | 0 | $350.00 |
| One Horse | $200.00 | 0 | $200.00 |
| Five Head of Cattle @ $20. Each | $100.00 | 0 | $100.00 |
| One Saddle, bridle & martingale, & saddle bags | $23.00 | 0 | $23.00 |
| 4 & a half Bls of flour @ $10 per Bll | $45.00 | 0 | $45.00 |
| One lot of Clothing as per per sale | $143.00 | 0 | $143.00 |
| Six Gallons of Brandy @ $4 per Gal | $24.00 | 0 | $24.00 |
| One lot of Groceries | $32.00 | 0 | $32.00 |
| One lot of Kitchen furniture | $43.50 | 0 | $43.50 |
| One lot of Dried fruits &c | $61.00 | 0 | $61.00 |
| One lot of Bedding and table furniture | $30.00 | 0 | $30.00 |
| One Bll vinegar, 40 lbs soap @ 10 | $14.00 | 0 | $14.00 |
| One Wagon Cover | $10.00 | 0 | $10.00 |
| Sixty lbs of Tobbaco @ 75c | $42.00 | 0 | $42.00 |
| One Set of assorted Tools | $10.00 | 0 | $10.00 |
| One set of Harness | $4.00 | 0 | $4.00 |
| Eight Bus Grain @ $1 per bu | $8.00 | 0 | $8.00 |
| Damage done dwelling, locks & furniture broken, outhouses &c | $60.00 | 0 | $60.00 |
| One lot of Money, specie &c | $50.00 | 0 | $50.00 |
| fifty One skins @ 25c Each | $12.50 | 0 | $12.50 |
| The Claim consists of 20 Items amounting to | $1262.00 | 0 | $1262.00 |
Claims Summary:
The Poll lists show that Claimant voted for the adoption of the Ordinance of Secession. This was a disloyal act for which we are called & trained to reject his Claim.
Testimony: John Engleman
United States of America State of Virginia SS
I, W.G. Riley, a commissioner selected and designated by the Commissioners of Claims appointed under the act of Congress of March 3rd 1871, to take and record testimony Do hereby certify that the reason for taking the following depositions is and the fact is, the matter of Claim of John Engleman vs the United State of America, and the witness herein named being first duly sworn answereth as follows
Quest 1 Witness says-I am sixty years old. I reside in Augusta County Va. by occupation a farmer. I resided where I now reside for fourteen years.
2 Witness says-I have resided from the 1st of April 1861 to the 1st of April 1865 at the same place I now reside at.
3 Witness says-I never passed beyond the Military or Naval lines of the United States and entered the Rebel lines.
4 Witness says-I never took any oath or affirmation to bear allegiance to the so called Confederate States
5 Witness says-I have taken the Amnesty Oath. I took it in 1865. I took it in Augusta County Va after the war. I have never been pardoned by the President as I have done nothing to be pardoned for
6 Witness says-I never was directly or indirectly or in any manner connected with the civil service of the United States
7 Witness says-I never held any office or place of trust honor or profit under the Confederate Government
8 Witness says-I never held any Clerkship or agency of any kind for the benefit of the Confederate States
9 Witness says-I never was in any capacity in the Military or Naval service of the Confederate States
10 Witness says-I never was an officer or soldier, sailor or marine, of the Confederate Army or Navy I never furnished a substitute for the Confederate Army or Navy I never was directly or indirectly connected with any department of the Confederate Government I had charge of no stores or supplies for the use of the Confederacy at any time. I had charge of no trains, team or teams, wagon or wagons, vessels or boats or any thing of the sort for the use of the Confederacy.
11 Witness says-I never was at any time employed in any business whatsoever for the Confederate Government it's Army or Navy. I never furnished any supplies or stores for the aid of the Confederacy.
12 Witness says-I never was employed in the manufacture of munitions of war, clothing, boots or any thing else for the use of the Confederate Army or Navy.
13 Witness says-I never was directly or indirectly employed in the collection, impressment, or purchase of stores or anything else for the benefit of the Confederacy. I never was interested in any contracts for the Confederate Government or its Army or Navy
14 Witness says-I never was engaged in blockade running or illicit trafic I had no interest in any goods, wares or suppplies, brought into the Confederate States during the war
15 Witness says-I did not leave the Confederate States between the 19th of April 1861 and the 19th of April 1865
16 Witness says-I never was the owner or part owner of any vessel used for any purpose.
17 Witness says-I was arrested by the Confederate Government in May 1864. I was arrested in Augusta County Va by the Confederate Provost guard I was under arrest two days and nights. I took no oath to the Confederate Government to get released. They told me to go home and raise corn for the Confederate Army. I did not promise that I would do it. I never was arrested by the United States Government
18 Witness says-I had a horse, corn and hay and oats taken by the Confederate Authorities, at different times during the war, for the use of the Confederate Army. I received no pay for the same
19 Witness says-I was threatened with damage and injury to my person, family, and property on account of my Union sentiments by rebel soldiers and my neighbors they threatened to take my property and put me and my wife in Castle Thunder at Richmond.
21 Witness says-I contributed money to get my sons into the Union lines.
22 Witness says-I gave Union men directions how to go to the Union lines. I harbored them at my house and fed them in the brush until they could go into the Union lines.
23 Witness says-I had nephews in the Confederate Army. I had no relatives in the Union Army that I know of. I never did any thing to supply them with military equipments or with money.
24 Witness says-I have never owned any Confederate bonds I did nothing to support the credit of the Confederate States
25 Witness says-I have never given aid or comfort to the Rebellion
26 Witness says-I never was engaged in making raids into the United States from Canada nor in the destruction of the United States' Commerce
27 Witness says-I never was directly or indirectly engaged in holding in custody any persons taken by the Confederate Government as prisoners of war.
28 Witness says-I never was engaged in the persecution of any persons on account of their loyalty to the United States.
29 Witness says-I never was a parolled prisoner of the United States
30 Witness says-I never held any office under the United States I was never educated at West Point or at the Naval Academy
31 Witness says-I never received any pass from any officer of the Confederate Government.
32 Witness says-I never was under disabilities imposed by the fourteenth article of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States I have held no office under the United States Government since the war.
33 Witness says-At the beginning of the Rebellion I sympathized with the Union and not with the Rebellion. I did not vote for the ordinance of secession. After the ordinance of secession was adopted I adhered to the Union Cause, and not to the South.
34 Witness says-In conclusion, I do solemnly declare that, from the beginning of hostilities against the United States to the end thereof, my sympathies were constantly with the cause of the United States; that I never, of my own free will and accord, did anything, or offered, or sought, or attempted to do anything, by word or deed, to injure said cause, and was ready at all times to aid the cause of the Union so far as my means and power, and the circumstances of the case permitted, and further the witness saith not Aug 25th 1871
John Engleman
Testimony: Jacob Engleman
Jacob Engleman a witness to prove the taking of the Claimant's property, being first duly sworn answereth as follows
Quest 1 Witness says-I am twenty two years old. I reside in Augusta County Va. by occupation a farmer. I was present when the property mentioned in the claimants petition was taken.
2 Witness says-I did not see them all taken.
4 Witness says-The articles that I saw taken were taken in 1864 from the farm of the Claimant they were taken by Genl Crook's men, he was an officer in the United States Army. I suppose it was by the orders of Genl Crook that the property was taken
8 Witness says-The property was removed by soldiers
9 Witness says-The property was removed to the Camp on the adjoining farm. I saw some of the property after it was carried to the encampment
10 Witness says-I suppose all the property mentioned in the Claimants petition was taken for the use of the Army
11 Witness says-He complained to Genl Crook and Genl Averill both meaning the Claimant. Genl Crook gave the Claimant an order to get his horses, he got one, the others he did not get.
12 Witness says-No receipt was asked for and none given.
13 Witness says-The property was all taken in the day time from two O'clock until dusk
14 Witness says-When the property was taken the Army was encamped on the adjoining farms about a mile distant, under Genl Crook who was under the Command of Genl Hunter. They stayed until next morning. There had been no battle before the property was taken.
15 Witness says-The horses were in good condition. They were young horses, two of them were worth about one hundred and seventy five dollars apiece, and I think the other was worth two hundred dollars they were all three young and in good condition. There were five head of cattle taken they were good beef cattle, and I think they were worth fifty dollars apiece. There was clothing taken for spies as mentioned in the claimants, which I suppose was worth forty five dollars. There was four and a half barrels taken worth about seven dollars & a half a barrel I saw one box of tobacco taken containing sixty two or three pounds we were selling it at that time at forty cents a pound. I saw some soap taken. I dont know how much, nor do I know how much it was worth. I saw some vinegar taken. I dont know how much nor do I know how much it was worth. Some bags and a wagon cover were taken I do not know what the bags were worth. The wagon cover I dont know it's valuation. Saddle bags and a bridle were taken, but I did not seem them taken. I do not know what they were worth. There was no harness taken that I know of. There was between nine and ten bushels of grain taken. I dont know whether it was corn or oats corn was worth a dollar a barrel oats thirty five cents. All the property mentioned was taken by Genl Crook's men. I think the property mentioned in the claimant's petition was worth what he has charged the Government for it
19 Witness says-I think the property described in each item was taken for the actual use of the Army, and not for individual officers or soldiers
21 Witness says-I think the property was taken in consequence of some necessity for the articles taken which necessity justified the officers in taking them
22 Witness says-I think the property was taken for some purpose so necessary that the Government ought to be required to pay for it
23 Witness says-I think it was taken by the order of officers who had the authority to take it or order it to be taken. A soldier told me he had orders to take it and further the deponent saith not. August the 20th 1871
Jacob S. Engleman
Testimony: Jacob Carwell
Jacob Carwell a witness introduced by the Claimant to prove loyalty, being first duly sworn answereth as follows-
Quest 1 Witness says-I am twenty eight years old. I reside in Augusta County Va. by occupation a farmer. I have known the claimant fifteen years. I reside near him. I saw him often during the war. I talked with him about the war, he was loyal to the United States Government during the war. He was so regarded by his neighbors. He harbored men from the Confederate Army who were deserters, he helped his son away. I never knew him to do anything voluntarily for the Confederate Army. I think the Claimant was too good a Union man to have been considered loyal to the Confederacy if it had succeeded and further the deponent saith not. August the 20th 1871
J.B. Carwell
Testimony: John H. Carwell
John J. Carwell a witness introduced to prove the loyalty of the Claimant being first duly sworn answereth as follows
Quest 1 Witness says-I am twenty six years old. I reside in Augusta County Va. by occupation a farmer. I have known the Claimant fifteen years. I reside about three miles from him. I saw him often during the war. I talked with him about the war, he was loyal to the United States Government during the war I think. He was so regarded by considered loyal to the Confederacy if it had succeeded, and Further the deponent saith not. August the 25th 1871
John H. Carwell
Sworn to & subscribed before me this 25th day of August 1871
WG Riley United States Commissioner and Special Com. for State of Va
Testimony: George L. Arehart
State of Virginia, County of Augusta S.S.
Mr. George L. Arehart, Henry Mish Michael Carwell George Ruebush, & John Spitter, all of the aforesaid County and State, do solemnly swear that we are all acquainted with John Engleman of said County & State, and know that during the war of rebellion, said Engleman suffered heavy losses through property taken by the U.S. forces in 1864, that we believe his claim as presented by him for damages is just and fair, that the prices therein charged are reasonable and just. We do further state that we know that said John Engleman was a thoroughly loyal citizen of the U.S. and consistently maintained his loyal sentiments, by harboring and concealing Union men and refugees escaping, that he throughout the rebellion, never served the Confederate Government in any capacity, or rendered any aid or support to said Confederate Government, its officers or adherents.
George L. Arehart, Henry Mish, M. Carwell, George Ruebush
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 24th day of April 1871 at Staunton Va.
James W Baldwin N.P.
Testimony: John R. Engleman
We do hereby certify that we have known John Engleman, of Augusta County Va before during and subsequent to the rebellion, that throughout said rebellion, he was a known Union Man, entirely loyalty to the cause and government of the U.S. harboring and concealing Union Men, and bitterly opposed to the Confederate Government its officers and adherents. We further know him to be a reliable and conscientious man, and that the most implicit reliance may be placed in any statement made by him regarding property taken by the U.S. forces. We have either of us of any interest in his claim.
John R Engleman, U.S. Storekeeper, In Va., William H. Frenger, U.S. Storekeeper, In Va.
May 8 1871.
Testimony: John H Carwell
This is to certify that I am well acquainted with Mr. John Engleman and believe him to be a United good Union man and deserted that had left the Southern army and help them thru the lines to the United States armys I well certify to the above
John H Carwell, M Carwell
Testimony: Henry Mish
This is to certify that I believed him to be a union man John Engleman all through the late war
Henry Mish
Testimony: William Fauber
This is to certify that I have known this Mr. John Engleman for I was living near him before the Rebellion and am satisifed that he never voted on the Ordinance of Cecession for him and myself often talked on that subject; and further during the war Southern men deserted the Rebel army and he would keep them concealed till they could get through the lines; and I know this Mr John Engleman sent his two sons through to the north and remained thare till the war was over. That I will qalify at any time
Wm. J. Fauber
Testimony: John Engleman
Middlebrook, Virginia March the 1st 1873
Mr
Dear Sir I will drop you a few lines more concerning my clame and will tel you that there were three John Englemen at the time the voting for the ratification of Secession took place and my voting place was greenville I lived in the greenville destrict but was in middlebrook on that day and did not vote and the other too Englemen lived in the Staunton destrict and I suppose voted there at least reports are they So I think hard that I should bee wronged out of my Just wrights on account of others and if my name is recorded as voting for secession it is false which I would qualify to at any time & that is all I will say for myself but will let others say for me &c
John Engleman
Testimony: R. A. Helms
This is to certify that I am well acquainted with Mr John Engleman and belive the above Statement of his to be perfectly true and correct and that previous to and during the war he was loyal to the government of the United States and I am willing if necessary to qualify to this statement.
Yours Respectfully RA Helms
Testimony: J. B. Fauver
Middlebrook Augusta County Va March 1st 1873
This is to certify that I have known Mr John Engleman for the last 25 years he has always been a very firm man doing what he thought right to himself and neighbors. At the commencement of the rellion He was a union man and all ways remained so drin during the war I frequently conversed with him on that subject and always found him decidedly in favour of the united states government. He said that he was in favour of the union men arming clubs for the purpose of protecting each others property from the Impressment for the Reble government saying that he did not want to aid the rebellion in any Way or form. I visited his house at night for the purpos of meeting men their that had been through the lines to the union side also others that intended going through, and did go through after that I also got some apples from him which he did not take any pay for them stating that he felt like helping any one that was on his side that was the union side, and I cannot beleave that he ever voted for the ratification of secession as he always opposed it to me this I will be qualified to at any time if necessary
Very respectfully J.B. Fauver PM Middlebrook Va.
Testimony: John H. Morgan
This is to certify that I we have known Mr John Engleman for twenty years. I believe him to be perfectly truthful & honest in all his dealings towards man & Government. I know him to be a true loyal man. Having received protection at his hands during the war-prior to my crossing the lines-and feel confident that the statement made by him is a truthful one. Moreover I knew him to be badly treated, by the "Provost-Guard" especially on account of his political principles and his inclinations shown the loyal people of this section. I am willing to certify to the above statement.
John H. Morgan M.D., Wm Morgan
Middlebrook Va March 1st 1873
Testimony: William Frenger
I hereby certify that for more than 20 years I have known John Engleman; that he is a man of veracity; that his statement about not voting for the ratification of secession can be relied upon. There are three John Englemans. It is probable that he is confounded with their names. When I left Va for the North, during the War, he assisted me in getting through the lines, & is t in my absence took care of and rendered assistance to my widowed mother.
Staunton March 8th 1873
W.H.H. Frenger U.S. Deputy Collector In Va
Testimony: James E. Beard
This is to certify that I believe what Mr John Engleman has written to be true and I fully concur in the certificates attached, given under my hand this 7th day of March 1873
Jas. E. Beard
Testimony: Richard Anderson
This I fully agree in the foregoing statements in regard to Mr John Engleman. Given under my hand this 7th day of March 1873
Richard Anderson his mark
Testimony: Claimant's Brief on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. DECEMBER TERM 1893-94.
John Engleman, vs. The United States No. 6817 Cong.
STATEMENT.
The claimant in this case resided in Augusta Co., Va., during the late war of the rebellion.
The Commissioners of Claims disallowed his claim, and in their report to Congress state:--
"The poll lists show that claimant voted for the adoption of the ordinance of secession. This was a disloyal act for which we are constrained to reject the claim."
Report not signed by any of the Commissioners.
The claim was transmitted to the Court by the Committee on War Claims on Feb. 15th, 1889.
BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
The following tesimony was taken while the claim was pending before the Commissioners of Claims.
This testimony was taken in Aug. '71.
JOHN ENGLEMAN testifies: Age 60; residence Augusta Co., Va., farmer. Have resided here for fourteen years. Never passed beyond the military or naval miles of the United States and entered the rebel lines. Never took an oath or affirmation to bear allegiance to the so-called Confederate states. (P. 1). Took the amnesty oath in '65, in Augusta Co., Va. after the war. Never been pardoned by the president. Never directly or indirectly connected with the civil service of the United States. Never held any office or place of trust, honor or profit under the Confederate Govt. Questions 8 to 16 inclusive answered in the negative favorable to loyalty. Never furnished a substitute. (P. 2 & 3). Was arrested by the Confederate Govt. in May '64, in Augusta Co., Va., by the Confederate Provost guard. Was under arrest two days and two nights. Took no oath to the Confederate Govt. to get released. They told me to to home and raise corn for the Confederate army. I did not promise that I would do it. Never arrested by the U.S. Govt. Had a horse, corn, hay and oats taken by the Confederate authorities at different times during the war for the use of the Confederate army. Received no pay for the saw. (P. 4). Was threatened with damage and injury to my person, family and property on account of my Union sentiments by rebel soldiers and my neighbors threatened to take my property and put me and my wife in castle thunder at Richmond. I contributed money to get my sons into the Union lines. I gave Union men directions how to go to the Union lines. I gave Union men directions how to go to the Union lines. I harbored them at my house and fed them in the brush until they could go into the Union lines. Had nephews in the Rebel army. Had no relatives in the Union army that I know of. Never did anything to supply them with military equipments or with money. Never owned any Confederate bonds, did nothing to support the credit of the Confederacy. (P. 6). I have never given aid or comfort to the rebellion. Questions 26 to 32 inclusive answered in the negative favorable to loyalty. (P. 6). At the beginning of the rebellion I sympathized with the Union and not with the rebellion. I did not vote for the ordinance of secession. After the ordinance of secession was adopted I adhered to the Union cause and not to the South.. Solemnly declares that from the beginning of hostilities to the end thereof, his sympathies were with the cause of the U.S., etc., etc. (P. 7).
JACOB CARWELL testifies: Age 28; residence Augusta Co., Va., farmer. I have known the claimant fifteen years. Resided near him. Saw him often during the war. Talked with him about the war. He was loyal to the United States Govt. during the war. So regarded by his neighbors. He harbored men from the Confederate army who were deserters. He helped his sons away I never knew him to do anything voluntarily for the Confederate army. I think the claimant was too good a Union man to have been considered loyal to the Confederacy, if it had succeeded. (P. 12).
JOHN H. CARWELL testifies: Age 26; residence Augusta Co., Va. Farmer. I have known the claimant fifteen years. Resided about three miles from him, saw him often during the war. Talked with him about the war. He was loyal to the United States Govt. during the war. Think he was so regarded by his neighbors. I was in the Confederate army, and I left it, and he concealed me in his house. Three of us staid at his house off and on until we could get into the Union lines. I never knew him to do anything for the rebel cause. He was too good a Union man to have been considered loyal to the Confederacy if it had succeeded. (P. 13).
The following testimony has been taken since the reference of the claim to the Court. This testimony was taken pursuant to notice, on Oct. 5th 1894.
WM. T. FAUBER testifies: Age 69; farmer; residence Augusta Co., Va. Not related or interested. (P. 1). I knew the claimant personally. My acquaintance began before the war. Knew him intimately during the war, and resided a mile and a half from him, in his immediate neighborhood. Saw him frequently and conversed with him as a neighbor often. Conversed with him often about the war and its results, and he always expressed himself that he desired the success of the Federal Govt. and hoped the Yankees would soon whip the South. He said that the people in this section had to be very careful how they talked about the war, and our conversations were not in the presence of others to my knowledge I was an adherent of the Union cause and was recognized as such by the people of my neighborhood and county. (P. 2). He was looked upon and regarded as loyal to the Government of the United States by his neighbors and those who knew him during the late war. He never flinched from that position. His neighbors who were loyal always regarded him as such. The Confederates said he was a dangerous man, and regarded me in the same way. I know that the claimant never had the opportunity to aid the Union army. He never contributed anything to aid the Confederate Government to my knowledge. He told me that he never voted at all. If he voted he certainly would have voted against secession. His views never changed during the entire war. (P. 3). There were three bearing the name of John Engleman that I know of in Augusta Co., Va., and they were qualified voters. One lived in the Middlebrook neighborhood, another in the Hebron Church neighborhood and the third in Staunton, Va. I know the claimant was not in Ky. at any time during the war up to the month of Jan. '64 when I left and passed through the lines into Ohio. (P. 4).
JAS. E. BEARD testifies: farmer, age 72; residence Augusta Co., Va. Not interested or related. (P. 5). I was acquainted with the claimant, John Engleman, He moved to my neighborhood in the Spring of '56 on the farm adjoining mine. I had known him previously, but more intimately after his removal to our neighborhood. My acquaintance was intimate with him during the war except the first ten months when I was absent from my home. I resided about a quarter of a mile from him. Saw him two or three times a week, and on an average at least once a week, except the first ten months of the beginning of the war. He was a very near neighbor, and we were frequently thrown together. We conversed often about the war and its causes and Mr. Engleman always expressed himself in sympathy with the Government of the United States. Conversations generally alone, but sometimes in the presence of particular friends. Names them. I voted for secession, but when I went to vote it was my preference to have voted against it, I was told that my vote would only be received by voting for secession or not otherwise. (P. 6). I knew his reputation and he was regarded by others who knew him as loyal to the Government of the United States during the entire war. He was regarded as a Union man by his loyal neighbors. He was always spoken by others in the same way. He had no opportunity to aid the Union army, except to aid persons in going through the lines, which he did. He never aided the Confederacy to my knowledge, and if at all by compulsion. I don't think he voted at all in '61. His views grew stronger in favor of the Northern side. (P. 7). I only knew of two John Englemans in Augusta Co. Heard of a third one. The claimant John Engleman lived near Middlebrook, and the other one John B. Engleman lived at Staunton, Va. I am certain the claimant was not in Ky. during the war, unless during the first ten months of the beginning of the war, when I was absent. (P. 8).
ROBT. A. HELMS testifies: Occupation boot and shoe trade; age 56; residence Augusta Co., Va. Not interested or related. (P. 9). I was acquainted with the claimant. My acquaintance commenced in '61. Intimately acquainted with him during the whole war. Resided in the same neighborhood about 2-1/2 distant from him, and during that time I boarded in his family for several weeks. Saw him frequently, and once a week when he came to Middlebrook for his mail generally. Conversed with him often about the war; most every time we met. He invariably expressed himself opposed to the war and in favor of the Federal Govt. Conversations alone and in the presence of others. Names those who were present. (P. 10). I was in favor of the Union, and was known to the claimant as such. (P. 10). I knew his public reputation for loyalty. He was regarded by the people of his neighborhood as loyal to the Federal Govt. and know the fact that he was criticised because of his Union sentiments. He was regarded by his loyal neighbors as loyal to the U.S. Govt. and was talked about my others who were not loyal. Knew of nothing the claimant did to aid the Union army, except to aid persons in crossing the lines to avoid service in the Confederate army. He never aided the Confederacy to my knowledge, and if it all by compulsion. I don't know of my own knowledge how the claimant voted in '61, but remember hearing him say that he did not vote at all. His views never changed at all. (P. 11). I knew of two John Englemans living in Augusta Co., that is the claimant, John Engleman, who resided near Middlebrook and John B. Engleman who resided at Staunton, Va., both of whom were qualified voters. I am satisifed that the claimant was not in Ky. from April '61 to Nov. '64. (P. 12).
JACOB B. CARWELL testifies: Farmer; age 51; residence Augusta Co., Va. Not interested or related. I was acquainted with the claimant having known him from my early childhood up to his death. Acquaintance intimate during the war. Live in the same neighborhood about two miles distant from him. Saw him often in the neighborhood and at his home nr. Middlebrook, Va. I talked with him often about the war and its consequences. He never expressed himself favorable to the Confederacy, but always against it and in favor of the Government of the United States. (P. 13). Conversations alone and in the presence of others. Names those who were present. I was an adherent of the Union cause, and was known as such to the claimant. I knew his public reputation as to his loyalty, from general repute in his neighborhood and from acts in harboring and protecting Union men during the war. He was regarded by his loyal neighbors as loyal to the U.S. Govt., and never questioned otherwise. Claimant never aided the Union army to me knowledge, because he never had any opportunity. He never contributed anything to aid the Confederate Govt. to my knowledge. I am sure his inclination was opposed to such aid. (P. 14). I don't think the claimant voted at all in '61. His views never changed. I only knew of two John Engleman's living in Augusta Co., Va. John Engleman the claimant, who lived near Middlebrook, and John B. Engleman who lived in Staunton, Va. I am satisified the claimant was not in Ky. during the war. (P. 15).
SUMMARY.
Mr. Engleman was 50 years of age in '61. He was a farmer living in Augusta Co., Va., during the war. Never took any oath to the Confederacy; never held any position under the Confederacy. Was arrested by the Confederates in May '64; detained two days and two nights. The Confederates took forage for which he says he received no pay. He was threatened on account of his Union sentiments. Furnished money to send his sons into the Union lines. Harbored and fed Union men, until they could go into the Union lines, and gave them directions how to go there. Never gave any aid to the rebellion. Did not vote for secession in '61. Adhered to the Union cause throughout.
MR.CARWELL testifies to the local reputation of the claimant; that he harbored deserters from the Confederate army, and helped his sons to get away.
JOHN H. CARWELL testifies to the loyal reputation of the claimant,and to his concealing him and two other deserters from the Confederate army until they could get into the union lines.
MR.FAUBER testifies that he knew claimant intimately during the war; conversed often, he always expressed himself as desiring the success of the Federal Govt., and wishing the success of the Yankees. Testifies to his loyal reputation, and that his neighbors who were loyal always regarded him as such. That his views never changed. That there were three men bearing the name of John Engleman, in Augusta Co., Va., who were qualified voters. Gives their location. Further states that the claimant was not in Ky. at any time to Ohio.
MR. BEARD, age 72; testifies that the claimant lived on at adjoining farm, and they were intimate during the war, frequently together. Conversed often, and that Mr. Engleman, always expressed himself in sympathy with the U.S. Govt. Testifies to the loyal reputation of the claimant; that he aided men to get through the lines. That his views grew stronger in favor of the Northern side.
Witness says he knew of two John Englemans in Augusta Co., and heard of a third one.
MR. HELMS testifies that he was intimate with the claimant during the war,and that the claimant invariably expressed himself opposed to the war and in favor of the Federal Govt. That he was regarded by the people of his neighborhood as loyal to the Federal Govt. Remember hearing claimant say he did not vote in '61. Knows of two John Engleman's in Augusta Co.
MR. CARWELL testifies, lived in the same neighborhood with the claimant; always expressed himself against the Confederacy, and in favor of the U.S. That he harbored and protected Union men. Testifies to loyal reputation. Testifies to knowing two John Engleman's in Augusta Co., Va.
Guided by the foregoing testimony the conclusion is irresistible, that, John Engleman was always a Union man and loyal to the U.S. Govt. It is also evident, that he did not vote for secession.
Respectfully Submitted, Gilbert Moyers ATTY FOR C'L'M'T.
Testimony: Brief of Evidence for the Defense
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. DECEMBER TERM 1894-95.
John Engleman, vs. The United States No. 6817 Cong.
BRIEF OF EVIDENCE FOR DEFENSE.
The following testimony was taken on behalf of the defense, on Feb. 14th, 1895.
WM. A. BURNETT testifies: age 58; residence Augusta Co., Va., Not related or interested. (P. 1). I knew a man by the name of John Engleman, who lived in this county during the period between '60 and '63. I knew a man by that name at that time who lived in this county. The John Engleman referred to lived about eight or nine miles west of Staunton, and within about two and a half miles of Middlebrook. His usual place of voting was Middlebrook Precinct, in this county, but he could have voted at the Court House Precinct, or any other precinct in the Co. The poll books for the elections referred to in the question, are on file in the Clerk's office of the county Court of Augusta Co., Va., and I am the custodian of them as the Clerk of that Court. As shown by the poll books of the year '61 and election was held on the 4th day of Feb. '61, for the election of three delegates to the convention called by act of Assembly to provide for electing members of the convention and to convene the same, passed Jan. 14, 1891. (P. 2).
The candidates voted for at that election were John D. Imboden, (afterwards a general in the Confederate army) John B. Baldwin, (afterwards an officer for a short time in said army), Alex. H.H. Stuart, Geo. Baylor, Kenton Harper, and Jas. H. Skinner, (the two last named, of whom were also afterwards both officers in the said army) John B. Baldwin, Alex. H.H. Stuart, and Geo. Baylor were Union candidates. At the same election, as appears in the same Poll book, the questions for referring action of convention to the people, and against referring action of Convention to the people, were voted on. On the 23rd of May '61 a poll was taken of the sense of the voters upon the ratification or rejection of an ordinance to amend the constitution of Va., by striking out the 22nd and 23rd sections of the 4th article of the then constitution. The name of John Engleman appears recorded on the poll book of the Court House precinct of date May 23rd, 1861, as having voted for Bolivar Christian for the Senate, Hugh W. Sheffey, Wm. M. Tate, and John A. Harman, for the House of Delegates, and Thos. L. Brown, for Board of Public Works, and also for the ratification of the Ordinance of secession. I never knew of but one John Engleman in this county in '61. There were three other Englemans, bearing the name of John, one was John J. Engleman, and the other two were named John B. Engleman, each. No John Engleman voted there, so far as the Poll Books show, at either of the elections referred to in my previous annswers. (P. 3). I see the name of Wm. F. Smith, who lived at Greenville, where there was a precinct and who lived four miles further from the Court House than John Engleman lived, recorded on the Poll Book as having voted at the Court House Precinct, at that election. There may be others, but I do not recognize the names of any others whose residences at that time I can remember as being as far away from Staunton, the Court House Precinct, as John Engleman lived. The Court House Poll Book of the election of Feb. '61 shows that John B. Engleman, Peter F. Engleman, D. Engleman, John Engleman and John J. Engleman voted at said Court House Precinct at said election. And at Middlebrook Precinct at the same election Wm. D. Engleman voted. At the election held May 23rd, '6l at the Court House Precinct, the Poll Book shows that John B. Engleman, Peter Engleman, Jr., David Engleman, John Engleman and John J. Engleman voted. At the same election Wm. D. Engleman voted at Middlebrook Precinct. I have not examined the record of votes of the election of Feb. '61, further than the Middlebrook and Court House Precincts. I have examined the record of votes of all the precincts in the county at the May election, and I do not find the name of John Engleman on any of the poll books except as already stated. (P. 4). My information is that D. or David Engleman, was John Engleman's brother. The names of D. Engleman, and John Engleman appear so recorded on the Poll Book one immediately following the other. I was Asst. or Deputy Clerk from '54 to '64. I was then elected to the office of the Clerk in '64 and have been elected to the office of the Clerk in '64 and have been continuously elected every six years since down to the present time, with the exception of a short time in '66, I think, elected by the people of the county. I am acquainted with a very large majority, if not all, of the voters in the Staunton or Court House Precinct, as well as with their residences and occupations.
The poll books in Staunton and Middlebrook were kept with accuracy and are correct. (P. 5).
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
At the date referred to '61, John B. Engleman son of Geo. Engleman, lived lived at Staunton. And John B. Engleman son of Peter Engleman lived about four miles West of Staunton. Staunton was the voting place of both of these men. There was but one John B. Engleman appeared on the Poll Book of Staunton, or Court House Precinct, at that election. There was no person to my knowledge by the name of John Engleman, whose regular voting place was Staunton. Only one John B. Engleman appears on the Poll Books of the election of May '61. (P. 6). At each of these elections at Staunton there appears upon the poll books one John Engleman, and one John B. Engleman. I have already stated that I believed the books accurate, and I still believe them to be so. I find, in one instance, however, the name of a voter, Mr. Bagby, with the omission of the middle letter of his given name, or christian name, and his first name mis-spelled. His name is Shapley N. Bagby, and it is recorded simply Chapley Bagby. Again I notice the name of John K. Wood, which should be John K. Woods. Also the name of James P. Bryan, appears, which should be James B. Bryan. Old Mr. John Engleman, was not a person who travelled about a great deal; and unless other business called him I hardly think it probably that he would have left his Precinct, Middlebrook, to have travelled eight or nine miles for the purpose of voting. A middle letter of either one of the John B. Engleman's, could have been made an omission of, but cannot speak of that of my own knowledge. Knew John Engleman from two years previous to the war to his death. My first information as to John Engleman's reputation, as to loyalty to the U.S., was gathered with reference to Mr. Engleman and several others in his neighborhood during the war, and afterwards. He was always opposed to the Government of the U.S. Heard him express himself to that effect since the war. Know he was generally regarded so by the people of his immediate neighborhood during the war.
RE-EXAMINATION.
At the Court House Precinct, at election Feb. 4th, '61, there were cast 807 votes; very few omissions in this poll book, or inaccuracies in names recorded, discover none, except as stated in my cross-examination. Knew names, occupations, and residence of the majority of them. (P. 8). When I first came to the name of Thos. C. Coleman, I thought it a mistake,, and ought to be Thos. E. Coleman. On reflection became satisifed that the poll book was right. Met with a similar incident and experience in another case,, except I am not now entirely satisifed, whether Coleman's name is Thos. C. or Thos. E.. Consideration of these names I think pretty well illustrate the care and accuracy with which I examined the poll book. I kept the poll book at the Court House Precinct at May election in '61, It is in my hand writing. Both the name of John Engleman, and John B. Engleman apear on that book. (P. 9). I hardly think I would have left out the middle letter of one John B. Engleman, when two John B. Engleman's voted., but am not infalible. The votes recorded by me were announced by an officer or crier and as announced were entered on the poll book. The voting was viva voce. The clerk who kept the poll book at the Court House precinct, Feb. 4th, '61. Mr. Arnowl was considered a very good clerk, liable to make very few mistakes. (P. 10).
REMARKS
The foregoing is an abstract of all the testimony for the defense filed up to date, made in compliance with an order of the Court
Respectfully Submitted, Gilbert Moyers ATTY FOR C'L'M'T.
Testimony: Defendant's Brief on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
Estate of John Engleman, dec'd, vs. The United States. No. 6817--Cong.
DEFENDANT'S BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
This claim is for stores and supplies, valued at $1262., alleged to have been taken from the decedent near Middlebrook, Augusta Co., Virginia, about June 6, 1863, by United States troops. It was rejected by the Commissioners of Claims on the ground of disloyalty.
The brief of the evidence, prepared by the claimant's counsel, errs on the side of over-accuracy, inasmuch as it recites everything, making no distinction between hearsay, opinion, and competent testimony. Statements as to how a claimant said he voted, or how the witness thinks he voted, such as were made by the witnesses in this case, are inadmissible and should have been omitted.
In the testimony taken in 1871, the late claimant stated that he did not vote for the Ordinance of Secession. The Commissioners reported, however, that he did so vote, and found him disloyal on that account.
The Treasury Department having reported in 1892 that a list of voters for the ordinance of secession in County, Virginia, contained the name of John Engleman, testimony was taken in 1894 in order to show that there was more than one man of that name in the county.
Fauber stated as to this, "There were three bearing the name of John Engleman that I knew. All three were qualified voters; one lived in the Middlebrook neighborhood, another in Hebron Church neighborhood, and the third one at Staunton."
Beard stated, "I only knew of two, though [I] heard of a third one. The claimant John Engleman lived near Middlebrook, and the other one, John B. Engleman, lived at Staunton."
The statements of Helms and Carwell agreed with that of Beard as to there being a John Engleman, (the late claimant) at Middlebrook, and a John B. Engleman at Staunton. Fauber was not asked whether any of the three to whom he referred had middle names, no counsel being present in behalf of the defendant.
Subsequently the Treasury Department reported that the Augusta County list showed that John B. Engleman, John J. Engleman, and John Engleman had all three voted for secession in Augusta County, and in consequence the testimony of William A. Burnett was taken for the defence. He had kept the official poll book in the Court house precinct at the secession election in May, 1861, and as court clerk had been its custodian ever since. He stated that as deputy clerk from 1854 to 1864, and as court clerk ever since, except for a short interval, he was, and had been in 1861, acquainted with most if not all the voters in the Court House precinct, and with their residences and occupations. He knew John Engleman, the late claimant, who lived near Middlebrook, as also John J. Engleman and two men named John B. Engleman, but he never knew of but one John Engleman. David Engleman was his brother. The poll book of the Court House precinct for the election of May, 1861, showed that David Engleman, John Engleman (the latter immediately following the first), Peter F. Engleman, John B. Engleman and John J. Engleman had voted there. The Middlebrook precinct poll book showed that William D. Engleman had voted there, but no others of the name of Engleman. The poll books for the election of February, 1861, have precisely the same names, except that of Peter Engleman, Jr., instead of Peter F. Engleman. John-- Engleman could have voted at Middlebrook if he had wished, it being nearer his home than the Court House voting place. John Engleman voted for secession. The poll-books of the Court House and Middlebrook precincts were carefully kept and the witness believed them to be accurate, though on a careful investigation he had detected four errors in the 807 names on the Court House book. The poll-book for the Court House precinct at the election of February 4, 1861, was kept by the then court clerk, a very careful man.
It is submitted that this testimony is practically conclusive to the effect that John Engleman, the late claimant, voted for secession. The only possible chance to the contrary is that the second John B. Engleman, who lived four miles away from Staunton, was of age in 1861 (which is not proved) and voted, and that the witness Burnett, who kept the poll-book, omitted to write down the middle initial. A public officer cannot be presumed to have made a mistake, but on the contrary must be presumed to have done his duty properly until the reverse is proved. Moreover the testimony of the witness Burnett is that of a careful methodical man, and his hand-writing, even at his present age of 58, is remarkably clear and clerkly.
That the late claimant (who did not vote at Middlebrook, in February and May 1861, though he usually did so) should have come with his brother to vote at the Court House precinct, is thoroughly natural. On such momentous occasions a man would naturally go where he would meet the greatest number of his acquaintances, and talk over the questions of the day with them. The late claimant was only 50 years old at the time, and while he may not have been in the habit of traveling much, there is nothing to suggest any improbability in his having voted at the Court House. He lived eight or nine miles away, but the witness referred to another man, living four miles farther off than Engleman did, who yet came to the Court House to vote instead of going to the nearest precinct.
Against this practically conclusive testimony from the official record stands the solitary word of the late claimant himself that he did not vote for secession. It is evident either that his mind was failing when he gave this testimony or that he yielded to the temptation of interest. The Commissioners, with much less exact evidence before them than now exists, controvert his statement, did not believe him, and there can be no reason why the court should do so now.
In other respects the testimony of the claimant's witness is in general favorable to loyalty, but Burnett, the court clerk, stated, "He [Engleman] was always reputed by people of his neighborhood as opposed to the goverment of the United States. In fact I have heard him express himself to that effect since the war: and I know he was generally regarded so by the people of his immediate neighborhood during the war".
As the people of Augusta County have elected Burnett to the responsible position of court clerk every six years beginning with 1864, it is evident that he commands their confidence, and as his position since 1854, when he became deputy clerk at about 18 years of age, has made him exceptionally well acquainted with the people of the county, his unhesitating statement as to Engleman's disloyal reputation and expression of disloyal sentiments carries great weight. Were there no evidence whatever about the vote for secession, the court could scarcely find Engleman loyal in the face of the direct statements of such a man as Burnett, and it is clear that with the conclusive evidence as to the vote there can be no question as to the finding to be made.
It is to be observed that the poll books referred to by Burnett appear to have been before the counsel for both parties when his testimony was given, and that no objection was made by claimant's counsel to the giving of testimony as to the contents of the poll-books. Should the court, for any reason, desire to have certified copies put in evidence, this can of course be done.
Charles C. Binney, Assistant Attorney.
Testimony: Claimant's Supplemental Brief on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. DECEMBER TERM 1894-95.
Jacob F. Engleman, Adm'r., John Engleman, Deceased vs. The United States No. 6817 Cong.
CLAIMANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
The following testimony was taken in May 1895.
WM. D. HEMP testifies: Farmer; age 65; residence Augusta Co., Va. Not interested or related. I remember the election held in Augusta Co., May 23rd, 1861. On that day I was in Middlebrook in this county. I saw John Engleman on that day. He was in Middlebrook. (P. 1). It was about nine o'clock in the morning, I suppose, I first saw him. I talked with him there about three or four hours after I first saw him. He told me he was going home from there while I was talking to him. He told me that last of our conversation that he was not going to vote He said he could not vote the way he wanted to and he was not going to vote the secession ticket.
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
I did not vote at all. I did not vote because I always voted the Union ticket, and was not going to vote the secession ticket Can't tell how many times I voted the Union ticket. There was a vote taken to send me to the convetion. I voted the Union ticket then. It was Union or secession. I voted for the Union man to go down there. They went, and when they came back, it was reported that the Union men would not be allowed to vote; if you did not vote the secession ticket you would not be allowed to vote at all. If you did not vote the secession ticket you would be considered a Union man, and if the south gained its independence they would run you out. At that time the old whig party was called the Union party. That is why I say I always voted the Union ticket. (P. 2). I had a child about a month old, who died in the spring of '53. Had another child to die after that, think it was in '62. Dr. McChesney attended the first one that died; and Dr. Abrelius, McChesney & Dunlao attended the last one. I was sick at the same time, and during the war there was so much demand for physicians they had to take turn about in attending my family. Don't remember what persons were in the room the day I was born, don't remember that far back. I remember seeing the claimant and conversing with him as stated, because it was the year that the war broke out. I was not in favor of the war, and it was war times and there was right smart excitement. We had no particular conversation, except talking about the election and voting, and some other business. I know out first conversation occurred at Nine o'clock, because I know very well I was not in Middlebrook at 8 o'clock It was after 8 o'clock when I left home, and I know I could not have been there at 8 o'clock. I looked at the clock before I left home, and can give you the reason why I did. The reason why I did that my brother came to my house and was talking about voting, and he did not want me to go and were talking about voting, and he did not want me to go and were setting in the house talking, and I asked him if he was going. (P. 3). He said he was not because they would not allow him to vote the Union ticket. I told him I was going up there to see and if they didn't I would not vote; and during the time we were talking the clock struck eight. I started after that. Guess it was sometime about 12 o'clock when I next saw him, can't tell. Staunton is not quite 12 miles from Middlebrook.
Q. How do you know that Mr. Engleman, the claimant had not risen early, say 4 o'clock, come to Staunton and voted, as he chose, and returned to Middlebrook by 9 o'clock at which time you say you first saw him, and in this way have avoided any personal comment upon his vote by his neighbors particularly by yourself in whose presence he had acted differently from the manner he voted in Staunton, as shown by the poll books, or perhaps came to Staunton after he left you, saying he was going home?
A. I can't tell you that. I was not with him all the time during the day, except when he was in Middlebrook. I don't know except by what his son said.
I don't know that the claimant did anything to betoken his sympathy with the Confederacy. He was an independent man and could live without Confederate sympathy There were enough Union men where he lived for him to associate with and he did not do anything for the Confederacy, except what he was forced to do.. I was not there all the time. Don't know whether he furnished anny meals or lodging to the Confederate soldiers or not. He did not sell them anything I know. Whatever they got they pressed (P. 4). I have a claim against the Govt. I don't expect any of the Englemen's to testify in my case. They don't know much about it, I don't think. I cast my vote for the Union candidate, Lawyer Geo. Baylor. (P. 5).
JAMES E. BEARD testifies: Farmer; AGE 73: RESIDENCE 2 MILES FROM Middlebrook, Va. Not interested or related. I am the same Jas. E. Beard, whose deposition was heretofore taken in this case. I was at the election in Middlebrook, on May 23rd, 1861. I saw the claimant at Middlebrook on that day, talked with him. It was not earlier than 10 o'clock in the morning, perhaps 11. Somewhere along there. He just remarked to me, a man can't vote his sentiments I am not going to vote at all. I am going home. I did not see him after that on that day. (P. 6).
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
I have not a claim against the Govt. In just thinking over it I recollect it very well now the date I saw Mr. Engleman at Middlebrook. I don't know how it was I did not remember it on my previous examination. I have thought of it often since. Talked about it. There was no one else at Middlebrook on that day that used similar expression of feeling. I can't say positively now, but I think there was others at Middlebrook who opposed secession. I was opposed to secession. I voted at Middlebrook on that day. I did not vote against it. They did not want to take my vote. At last I voted for it, and I would have been considered a Union man, and become unpopular if I had not, though that was not my sentiment. I had two brothers of the same sentiments with mine. (P. 7). One of them did not vote at all. My brother voted for secession at last. I don't remember if any one vote against it in that precinct, but I think there were some. I had this conversation with John Engleman right in front of the building in which they were taking the votes. We were on our feet. There were others around, but no one taking notice of our conversation, so far as I know. If there was I don't know it now. Don't remember any other similar conversation. I remember the above conversations, because we talked it over afterwards, next day, I think. He said he went away from me and went home, and did not go back to the polls at all. I don't think this conversation was later than 11 o'clock.
J.W. ENGLEMAN testifies: Age 53; farmer, son of claimant. I was not present at the election at Middlebrook on May 23rd, '62. I was living with fater at the time. He resided from Middlebrook about 2-1/2 miles. He was absent from home that day, think he left home a little after sun up. He returned home a little after dinner. Might have been a little after 12 o'clock (P. 9). He took the road leading in opposite direction from Stanton. After his return home, I remember he stated that he wanted to vote the Union ticket, but they refused to record his vote
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
I did not vote that day, not old enough. I was 53 years old the 1st of July 1895.. I was at home when father rode away on the morning of the election. (P. 10). I think I was in the house when he was making preparation to go. I was in the yard, and saw him go off, the road goes by the front yard. (P. 10).
SUMMARY.
This testimony would seem to remove all doubt as to Mr. Engleman's voting for secession. And also materially strengthens the proof of loyalty throughout the war. He certainly had no feelings in common with the secession movement. On the contrary was fixed and zealous in support of the Union cause throughout the war.
Respectfully Submitted, Gilbert Moyers ATTY FOR C'L'M'T.
Testimony: Defendant's Supplemental Brief on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
Estate of John Engleman, dec'd vs. The United States. No. 6817--Cong.
DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
As shown by the defendant's original brief, the defence rests on evidence of disloyalty in two respects, viz., first, voting for secession, and, second, disloyal expressions and reputation.
In regard to the first point, the defence has shown conclusively that the name of John Engleman is recorded as that of a voter in favor of secession at Staunton, in Augusta County, Virginia, that there was no other John Engleman, without any middle name, in that county, and that John B. Engleman and John J. Engleman are also recorded as having voted, so that the name "John Engleman" could not have referred to either of them, as suggested in the claimant's first brief.
Since the defendant's original brief was filed, the claimant has taken the testimony of William D. Hemp, James E. Beard, and J.W. Engleman. Hemp states that he saw John Engleman at Middlebrook on the day of the election at about 9 A.M., and again about three or four hours afterwards. Beard states that nhe saw him at Middlebrook on that day not earlier than 10 A.M., or perhaps 11. James W. Engleman, the decedent's son, states that his father rode away from home on the day of the election, May 23, 1861, a little after sunrise, taking the road leading in the opposite direction from Staunton, and that he returned after dinner, "it might have been a little after 12 o'clock."
The above statements, which are all that the witnesses say that can be regarded as admissible as to this point, seem to be introduced in order to prove a sort of alibi--to show that John Engleman was not in Staunton the morning of the day of election. They relate however, solely to the morning, and do not cover the afternoon. Even if they proved conclusively (which they are very far from doing) that John Engleman was not at Staunton in the morning, they would not be held to impeach the record of his vote, because, as he lived only eight or nine miles from Staunton (see Burnett's testimony), he had plenty of time left to go there and vote in the afternoon. The witness Beard states that he himself did not vote 'till nearly night, when he voted for secession, apparently under persuasion.
Even as to the morning the alibi is not conclusively established. Engleman left home soon after sunrise, i.e. probably about five o'clock. The fact that he did not start out on the direct road to Staunton is no proof that he did not eventually go there. The precise hour or hours at which he was seen at Middlebrook are not positively certain, but he seems to have had time enough to have gone to Staunton before he was seen at Middlebrook.
In addition to the statements above quoted, these three witnesses also gave hearsay evidence (under objection by the defendant's attorney) of Engleman's declarations that he had not voted up to that time, and that he would not vote for secession. While this may perhaps be admissible evidence of loyal sentiments, it is manifestly inadmissible as evidence on the question of the vote. In answer to one of defendant's attorneys' objections, claimant's local attorney states that these declarations were admissible as res gestae, but it is well established that delcarations are only admitted as res gestae when "illustrative of a particular litigated act", but never to prove or disprove such act. Wharton on Evidence, 3rd ed. secs. 259, 266. For instance, if John Engleman be proved to have voted for secession, his contemporaneous denials of having done so or having intended to do so might be admissible, though hearsay, to show that he deceived his neighbors, or that he changed his mind; while if he be proved not to have voted, such hearsay statements might be admissible to show that he was willing to have the fact known, or that he acted in accordance with a fixed intention. Such hearsay statements cannot possible be admitted, however, as themselves proof, in any degree whatever, that Engleman did not vote. Until the main fact, viz., that he refrained from voting, be proved to have occurred, it cannot be shown to have had any attending circumstances-any res gestae-about it, such as would warrant the admission of hearsay statements.
Even were this otherwise, even if these statements could be admitted as contemporaneous evidence, they would not disprove the contemporaneous official record of what John Engleman did, not only because such record commands more confidence than the memory of men who testify after an interval of thirty-four years, but also because these statements were made in the morning or about noon, and there remained the afternoon in which Engleman could have voted, just as Beard did.
Beard's statement of what Engleman told him the day after the election is, in any view of the case, hearsay pure and simple, becauss it was after an "opportunity for concoction." (Wharton on Evidence, sec. 265.)
Then it is remembered that there was no other John Engleman (without a middle name) in Augusta County, that he had voted at Staunton at the election in February, 1861, that the name occurs directly after that of his brother David, that John B. and John J. also voted, and that the general accuracy of the poll-book is testified to, the new testimony cannot possibly be regarded as impeaching, even in the slightest degree, the contemporaneous official record of John Engleman's vote for secession.
As to the second point, that of expressions and reputation, the new testimony adds very little to that already in the case. It cannot possibly weigh against Mr. Burnett's testimony, referred to in the original brief, that Engleman's reputation was that of a disloyal man, and that he expressed himself as such to the witness.
Charles C. Binney, Assistant Attorney.
Testimony: Defendant's Motion for a New Trial on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term, 1895.
Estate of John Engleman, deceased, vs. The United States. No. 6817, Cong.
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON LOYALTY.
Now comes the Attorney General in behalf of the defendant, and moves this Honorable Court for a new trial of the issue of the loyalty of John Engleman, now deceased, for the reasons stated in the accompanying brief.
JE Dodge Assistant Attorney General.
Charles C. Binney Assistant Attorney in charge of case.
DEFENDANT'S BRIEF ON MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.
This claim is for stores and supplies, valued at $1262., alleged to have been taken from the decedent at Middlebrook, Augusta Co., Virginia. It was rejected by the Commissioners of Claims because the poll book of the secession election held at Staunton showed that the decedent had voted for secession, although in answer to the interrogatories he had stated that he did not vote at that election. Loyalty was found by this court January 13, 1896.
It was in evidence that the Staunton poll-book showed John Engleman, John B. Engleman, and John J. Engleman as having all voted to ratify the ordinance of secession, and further that there was in the county but one John Engleman and but one John J. Engleman. Several of the witnesses also knew of but one John B. Engleman, a man living at Staunton, but the defendant's witness, Burnett, stated that there were two men of that name, and the other being a son of Peter Engleman, and living about four miles west of Staunton.
Upon this state of the evidence, claimant's counsel contended that the name of John Engleman on the poll-book must have been meant for the second John B. Engleman, with the middle initial accidentally omitted, and the court appears to have adopted this view.
Counsel for defendant has now secured and filed the deposition of this second John B. Engleman, who says:
My father's name was Peter Engleman. My father lived, at and after my birth, four miles west of Staunton on the Middlebrook road, in Augusta county, Virginia. I moved from my father's in 1845 to near Waynesborough, Augusta county, Virginia. In about 1850 or 1851 I moved to near Marshall in Saline county, Missouri.......I was not in Augusta county, Virginia on either of the above occasions (the election for delegates to the convention and the election on the ratification of the ordinance). I did not vote in either of these elections.
An affidavit from Mr. Burnett, admitting his error, has also been secured and filed.
As the evidence now stands, therefore, there was but one John Engleman, but one John B. Engleman, and but one John J. Engleman in Augusta County at the date of the election, and no other Engleman named John. Each of these men are recorded as having voted for secession, and there is no evidence whatever that the poll-book, which was an official record, the election being viva voce, was not properly kept. On the contrary, its general accuracy is testified to. The John Engleman who is recorded as having voted for secession must, therefore, have been the decedent, and it is submitted that a new trial should be granted.
Charles C. Binney Assistant Attorney
Testimony: Motion to Vacate Order
COURT OF CLAIMS. DEDEMBER TERM 1895-96.
John Engleman, vs. The United States No. 6817 Cong.
MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF COURT GRANTING A NEW TRIAL IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED CAUSE.
The claimant by his attorney, Gilbert Moyers, moves this honorable Court to vacate order of May 4th granting a new trial in the above entitled cause on the question of loyalty, for the reason that said motion was remanded to the law calendar the date of filing the same, Mar. 24th, 1896. And on the 23rd of April, Thursday of the week, not a day upon which cases upon the law calendar are considered, Mr. Binney, the attorney for the defense, it seems from the docket, came into Court and submitted this motion in my absence, & in the absence of any brief on my part and without any notice to me that he was to take any such action. This proceeding I regard as in the highest degree unprofessional. It is well known to the attorneys for the defendants in my cases, and the Court is doubtless well aware of the same that I have been busily engaged for the past few weeks at the Capitol in my efforts to secure justice in the way of an appropriation for my clients in cases that have been allowed by the Court.
The delay on this motion has certainly not been unreasonable on my part less than one month, notwithstanding my engagements elsewhere.
I have written for affidavits and expect them daily by which together with the testimony on file, I expect to make it appear to the Court that there is not the slightest foundation in point of fact for defendant's motion.
In view of the foregoing, and believing that I have been dealty unjustly and unfairly by, by defendant's counsel, and that I am entitled to be heard on this motion as well as being afforded an opportunity for filing counter affidavits, I respectfully submit that the order of Court granting a new trial in this case should be revoked and defendant's motion remanded to the law calendar where it properly belongs.
In this connection I will add that I have never in all my practice in the Court of Claims taken advantage of the absence of an opposing counsel in submitting my cases. And in all candor I submit that such a practice should not obtain where an attorney is attentive to his business.
Respectfully Submitted, Gilbert Moyers ATTY FOR C'L'M'T.
Testimony: Claimant's Brief on Merits
COURT OF CLAIMS. DECEMBER TERM 1895-96.
Jacob F. Engleman, Adm'r., John Engleman, Dec., vs. The United States No. 6817 Cong.
STATEMENT.
The claimant in this case resided in Augusta Co., Va., during the war.
The Commissioners of Claims rejected the claim because they were not convinced of loyalty.
The claim was transmitted to this Court by the Committee on War Claims, Feb. 15th, 1889.
The claimant was held loyal by the Court Jan. 13th, 1896.
BRIEF ON MERITS.
The claimant alleges in his petition that there was taken from him near Middlebrook, Augusta Co., Va., by U.S. forces under Gen. Crook and Averill, on or about the 6th of June 1864, the following stores and supplies, of the values stated, to wit:--2 horses, $175 each, $350.00; 1 horse, 200.00; 5 head of cattle, at $20 each, 100.00; 1 saddle, bridle, martingals and saddle bags, 23.00; 4-1/2 bbls. flour at $10 per bbl, 45.00; 1 lot of clothing, 143.00; 6 gals brandy, at $4 per gal, 24.00; 1 lot of groceries, 32.00; 1 lot of kitchen furniture, 43.50; 1 lot of dried fruits, etc., 61.00; 1 lot of bedding and table furniture, 30.00; 1 bbl. vinegar, $10, & 40 lbs. soap, at 10 cts., 14.00; 1 wagon cover, 10.00; 50 lbs. tobacco, at 75 cts., 42.00; 1 set assorted tools, 10.00; 1 set harness, 4.00; 8 bus. grain, $1 per bu., 8.00; Damage done dwelling, locks and furniture, broken out houses, etc., 60.00; 1 lot of money, specie, etx., $50.00; 50 chickens at 25 cts. each, 12.50; Total: $1262.00
The following testimony was taken while the claim was pending before the Commissioners of Claims, in Aug. '71.
JACOB ENGLEMAN testifies: Age 22; residence Augusta Co., Va. Farmer. I was present when the property mentioned in the claimant's petition was taken. Did not see them all taken. The articles I saw taken were taken in '64 from the farm of the claimant, by Gen. Crook's men. He was an officer of the U.S. Army. I suppose it was by orders of Gen. Crook that the property was taken. The property was now removed by soldiers. The property was removed to the camp on the adjoining farm. I saw some of the property after it was carried to the encampment. (P. 8). Suppose all the property e mentioned in the claimant's petition was taken for the use of the army. Claimant complained to Gen. Crook & Gen'l. Averill, Gen. Crook, gave the claimant an order to get his horses. He got one, the other he did not get. No receipt asked for or given. The property was all taken in the day time from two o'clock until dusk. when the property was taken the army was encamped on the adjoining farms about a mile distant, under Gen. Crook, who was under the command of Gen. Hunter, they staid until next morning. There had been no battle before the property was taken.
The horses were in good condition, young horses, two of them worth about $175 apiece, and I think the other was worth $200.00 (P. 9). They were all three young and in good condition.
There were five heads of cattle taken, I think they were worth $50 apiece.
There was clothing taken for spies as mentioned in the claimants petition which I suppose was worth $45. There was four and a half barrels taken, worth about $7.50 a barrel. I saw one box of tobacco taken containing sixty two or three pounds. We were selling it at that time at 40 cts. a pound. I saw some soap taken, don't know how much, nor do I know how much it was worth. I saw some vinegar taken, don't know how much, nor how much it was worth. Some bags and a wagon cover were taken. Don't know what the bags were worth. Don't know the valuation of the wagon cover. Saddle bags and a bridle were taken, but I did not see them taken. I don't know what they were worth. (P. 10). There was no harness taken that I know of. There was between nine and ten bus of grain taken. I don't know whether it was corn or oats. Corn was worth a dollar a bushel, oats 35 cts.. All the property mentioned was taken by Gen. Crook's men. think the property mentioned in the claimant's petition was worth what he has charged the Government for it.
I think the property described in each item was taken for the actual use of the army, and not for individual officers or soldiers.. Taken in consequence of some necessity for the articles taken, which necessity justified the officers in taking them. Think the Govt. should be required to pay for it. I think it was taken by order of officers who had the authority to take it or order it to be taken. A soldier told me he had orders to take it, (P. 11).
The following testimony has been taken since the reference of the claim to the Court, in May 1897.
JAMES E. BEARD testifies:- farmer; age 75; residence Augusta Co., Va. Not interested or related. The farm that the claimant lived on June 6, '64, adjoined the one I lived on and the distance between his house and mine was less than half a mile. (P. 2). About that time Gen'l. Crook's command of the U.S. occupied the place first. Then after that Gen'l. Averill's troops of the same army came. Gen'l. Crook's soldiers took claimant's horses and cattle. There were four horses taken, but he got one back. He got an order from Gen'l. Crook for the return of one of the horses, and got it back. He got an order from Gen'l. Crook for the return of all his horses but could only find one. Crook's headquarters on the night of the day those horses were taken was at James Brittain's place about two miles from John Engleman's. The three horses that were not recovered were worth from $150 to $200 each, at that time in U.S. Money, or greenbacks. As near as I can remember now there were five cattle taken. Suppose they were worth $35 or $40 in U.S. currency. My father had sold one a few days before that for $40 in gold which was no better than those taken from Mr. Engleman. Horses and cattle taken during the day time, about 4 o'clock in the afternoon. (P. 3). Horses and cattle taken for the use of the army. At least they used them for the army. That was what they did with what they took of ours. Officers present and ordered the taking. I saw them driving them out of the field.
CROSS-EXAMINED.
They were driving them out of the field when I saw them taken, horses and cattle together. There was no firing there them. I did not hear a gun fired that day. I was at home on my own place, in the lane at the end and next to the Engleman farm, and where I could see the field in which the horses and cattle were. It was half a mile or less between the houses, and the field was between the houses. I was within less than half a mile of the horses and cattle when they were driven out of the field. It might have been a little more than 300 yards, but not much more, I think. I recognized the officer by his uniform. He went cross our field to the Engleman field, to the soldiers who were driving them up. There were two or three officers together, I could tell them by their uniform. (P. 4). The field from which they took the horses was 300 yards from where I was standing at the time. It was the same field, and the same time they took the horses and cattle. John Engleman had sole control of the horses and cattle, and I suppose they belonged to him. I know that one horse was recovered by order of Gen'l. Crook, because I saw the horse when he brought it back. I saw the order too.
W.H. BEARD testifies: age 42; residence Augusta Co., va., Not interested or related. (P. 5). On the 6th of June '64 I lived half mile from the claimant. I lived with my father James E. Beard, who has just testified in this cause. About that time John Engleman's place was occupied by the troops of the Federal army, Gen'l. Crook in command. I did not see any of claimant's property taken, but have every reason to believe his property was taken. He had three horses taken. I think I was too young them to know or put value on a horse. I can't say of my own knowledge how many cattle were taken Horses and cattle taken sometime late in the evening. Can't state the hour. By evening, I mean in the afternoon. I was at my father's house at the time I was not with my father in person when they were taken. (P. 6). I remember very distinctly hearing it spoken of the next morning. (P. 6 & 7).
ITEMIZED SUMMARY.
HORSES.
3 horses..........$550.00
J. Engleman testifies was present when all the property was taken. Did not see all taken. Saw the articles taken in '64 by Gen'l. Crook's men. Gen'l. Crook gave the claimant an order to get his horses. Got one, but did not get the others. (P. 3). Horses in good condition, young, values 2 at $175 each, the other $200. (P. 4).
Mr. Beard testifies that Gen'l. Crook's soldiers took claimant's horses. Four taken, but he got one back. Gen'l. Crook gave an order for the return of all, but only could find one. The three horses taken were worth from $150 to $200 each in U.S. Money. (P. 6). Horses taken about 4 o'clock in the afternoon. Officers present. (P. 7). Was about 300 yards from where the horses were taken. Saw them taken.
W.H. Beard testifies that claimant had 3 horses taken by Gen'l. Crook's command. Taken in the afternoon.
This testimony justifies a finding for 3 serviceable horses. The Govt. at that time was paying at least $150 for such horses. The finding should be for
3 horses..........$450.00
CATTLE
5 head cattle..........$100.00
Jacob Engleman testifies to the taking of five head of cattle. Values them at $50$ each. (P. 4).
Jas. E. Beard testifies to five cattle being taken. Values them at $35 or $40 in U.S. currency. Says that his father sold one a few days before for $40 in god, which was no better than those taken from Mr. Engleman. (P. 6). The cattle were taken for and used by the army. Officers present ordered the taking Saw them driving the cattle out of the field. (P. 7).
W.H. Beard testifies the cattle were taken late in the evening, in the afternoon. Can't say of my own knowledge how many were taken. (P. 8).
The finding should be for
5 cattle..........$100.00
SADDLE, BRIDLE, ETC.
1 saddle, bridle, etc...........$23.00
The testimony is not sufficient to justift a finding for these items.
The other items will be omitted.
The account may be stated as follows:--3 horses, $450.00; 5 cattle, 100.00; 4-1/2 barrels flour, 30.00; 60 lbs. tobacco, 40 cts. per lb., 24.00; 8 bus. grain, 8.00; Total: $612.00
Respectfully Submitted, Gilbert Moyers ATTY FOR C'L'M'T.
Testimony: Defendant's Brief on Merits
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
Jacob F. Engleman, Adm'r of John Engleman, Deceased. v. The United States. No. 6,817. Cong'l.
Defendant's Brief on the Merits.
This claim is for stores and supplies valued originally at $1262.00, but now reduced to $612.00, alleged to have been taken from the decedent near Middlebrook, Augusta County, Virginia, in June, 1864. It was rejected by the Commissioner of Claims on the ground of disloyalty.
Loyalty was found by this court, January 13th, 1896.
The testimony in the case appears to be fairly set out in the claimant's brief, but it is to be noted that only two witnesses testify to facts within their own acknowledge. The testimony of William H. Beard is admittedly based altogether on hearsay, and was objected to on that ground at the time it was taken.
The property is alleged to have been taken by the orders of General Crook and General Averell, but the decedent made no attempt to secure evidence in support of his claim, in the way of vouchers or receipts, and the testimony fails to show what regimental officers actually took the property, so that it is impossible for the Government to make any special inquiry among its officers as to the facts of the case. The Treasury Department's report on file states that an examination of the accounts of all officers known to have been on duty in the Quartermaster's or Commissary's Departments, in the vicinity of of Augusta county, Virginia, during June, 1864, furnish no evidence that any property whatever was taken from the decedent. Whatever doubt may exist as to an actual taking, for the use of the Army, of the precise quanity of property alleged, must, therefore, necessarily weigh against the claimant.
Although the claim has been somewhat reduced; the prices charged are still above those usually allowed by the court. While a number of miscellaneous articles have been stricken out of the claim, the item for tobacco has been retained, although it was not a part of the ration, and therefore cannot have been taken as stores and supplies.
Charles C. Binney, Special Attorney.
Testimony: Claimant's Request for Findings of Fact
COURT OF CLAIMS. DECEMBER TERM 1896-97.
Jacob F. Engelman, Adm'r. John Engleman, Dec. vs The United States No. 6817 Cong.
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 this claim in the findings of fact, requests the Court to find the same as follows:--
I. That the decedent, John Engleman, late a citizen of the United States residing in Augusta Co., Va., did not give any aid or comfort to the rebellion but was throughout the war loyal to the Govt. of the U.S.
II. That during the said period the U.S. forces by proper authority took from the said decedent Q.M. stores and commissary supplies of the values stated, to wit:--3 horses, $450.00; 5 cattle, 100.00; 4-1/2 barrels flour, 30.00; 60 lbs. tobacco, 40 cts. per lb., 24.00; 8 bus. grain, 8.00; Total: $612.00
III. That no payment has ever been made for said stores and supplies or any portion thereof.
Gilbert Moyers, Atty. for claimant.
Testimony: Findings
COURT OF CLAIMS. (Congressional Case No. 6817)
Jacob S. Engleman, Adm'r. John Engleman, Dec. 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 15th day of Feb. 1889.
On a preliminary inquiry the Court, on the 13th day of January, 1896, 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 3d day of March, 1898. Gilbert Moyers Esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney General, by C.C. Biney, Esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and proptection of the interests of the United States.
The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations:
The claimant in his petition in substance alleges:-
That he is a citizen of the United States residing in Augusta County, State of Virginia, where decedent resided during the late war of the rebellion; that on or about the 6th day of June, 1864, the United States forces under Generals Crook and Averill took, by proper authority, from said decedent, and appropriated to the use of the Army, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies, which in part are as follows 3 horses, $450; 5 cattle, 100; 4-1/2 barrels flour, 30; 60 lbs. tobacco, 40 cts. per lb., 24; 8 bus. grain, 8.; Total: $612.
There were taken from the claimant's decedent, in Augusta County, State of Virginia, during the late war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, stores and supplies of those above described, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum Five hundred and ten dollars ($510), for which no payment appears to have been made.
No allowance is made for tobacco.
Bibliographic Information : Southern Claims Commission: Claim of John Engleman, August 25, 1871, Claim No. 1382, Source copy consulted: National Archives, Washington, D.C., RG 123, Congressional Jurisdiction #6817.
