Summary: Price placed his claim for horses and cattle in the fall of 1871, and the Commissioners disallowed it in 1872, citing his vote in favor of the ordinance of secession as evidence of disloyalty. Price's heirs appealed this decision to the Court of Claims in 1895, and the case appears to have continued until 1904 without reaching any real resolution. Price's two daughters testified for the first time in 1895.
Items Claimed:
| Item Claimed: | Amount Claimed: | Amount Allowed: | Amount Disallowed: |
| 1 grey Stallion | 250.00 | 0 | 250.00 |
| 1 bay Horse | 125.00 | 0 | 125.00 |
| 1 Heifer, 3 yrs old | 20.00 | 0 | 20.00 |
| 5 Cattle 2 yrs old | 75.00 | 0 | 75.00 |
| Total | $470.00 | 0 | $470.00 |
Claims Summary:
Claim rejected.
Mr. John Price lived in Augusta County through the war. He appears to have been obnoxious to the rebels & have suffered annoyances from them.
His name is on the poll list voting for ratifying the ordinance of Secession, though he says he did not vote. Sansabaugh the only witness for his loyalty also voted for secession.
The taking is only proved by a boy of the name of Will Price-then twelve years old;-his testimony is far from Satisfactory.
We reject the Claim
AO Aldis Commrs of Claims
Testimony: John D. Price
John Price vs. The United States of America
On this 13th day of September 1871, at Staunton, in the County of Augusta and state of Virginia, personally came John Price, claimant and David Buchanan, David Sansebaugh, William Price, Susan Price and H. Bolen, his witnesses, in a cause now pending before the Commissioners of Claims, in the name of John Price vs. The United States, before me a SpecialU.S. Commissioner and, also Special Commissioner appointed, by the Commissioner of Claims.
Present John Price, Claimant and Attorney for said Claimant.
The said Claimant, and each of said Witnesses, were first before any questions were put to them, properly and duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, relative to the matters in which they were to testify; and the testimony of the claimant and said witnesses were taken down by me, or in my presence; and I read over to said claimant and, to each of said witnesses their respective depositions; and the said depositions were duly signed in my presence.
William G Riley US Commissioner-and Special Commr.
Deposition of John Price-claimant
Question 1st. Witness Says-I am 49 years old. I reside in Augusta County, Va. by trade a Wagon Maker. I resided in the County for the 6 months prior to the 1st of April 1861, and attended to my business. I resided at the same place from the 1st April 1861 to June 1st 1865.
3d. Witness Says-I never passed beyond the Military and Naval lines of the United States and enter the rebel lines.
4th Witness Says-I never took any Oath to the So called Confederate States.
5th Witness Says-I took an Amnesty Oath in 1865, at Middlebrook Augusta Co. Va. I never asked for a pardon from the President.
6th. Witness Says-I never was directly or in any way connected with the civil service of the Confederate States.
7th. Witness Says-I never held any office or place of trust or profit in the Confederate States.
8th. Witness says I never held any clerkship, agency or employment for the so called Confederate States.
9th. Witness Says-I was in any capacity in the Military or Naval service of the Confederacy.
10th. Witness Says. I never was an Officer soldier, sailor or Marine in the Confederates States. I never furnished a Substitute, nor connected with any department, bureau, or service of the Confederate States. I never had charge of any stores, supplies, teams, trains Wagons, or anything for the benefit or use of the Confederate Government.
11th. Witness Says, I never was in any capacity in the service of the Confederate Government its Army or Navy. I never furnished in any stores or supplies for the Confederate Government. I never give any information to any one connected with the Confederate Government.
12 Witness Says-I never was employed in the manufacture of any article whatever for the use of the Confederate Army or Navy. Nor assisted in any such manufacture.
13 Witness Says-I never was in any way employed in the collection, impressment or purchase of any stores or supplies for the benefit of the Confederate Army or Navy. Nor had any interest or share in any contracts.
14th. Witness Says I never was engaged in blockade running or illicit traffic or intercourse between the lines. I never had any interest in any goods or Merchandise brought into or exported from any port of the Confederacy.
15th Witness Says-I did not leave the Confederate States at no time during the War.
16th Witness Says-I never owned any interest in any vessel for any use, or upon any waters whatsoever.
17th. Witness Says-I never was arrested by the Confederate Government or any of its Authorities. I never was arrested by the United States Government.
18 Witness Says-I had some forage taken. I never was paid anything for it.
19 Witness Says-Some Confederate Soldiers threatened to shoot myself and my wife. They drew pistols to do so, and made an attempt to set fire to my house, because of my Union sentiments.
20 Witness Says-My premises were searched frequently, and one occassion when my son was a corpse. They annoyed my family very much.
21 Witness Says-I never had an oppertunity to do so.
23d Witness Says-I had one son in the United States Army, and I had a son for a few weeks in the Confederate States Army, but he did nothing at all. I never furnished either any thing.
24 Witness Says, I never owned a Confederate Bond. I did nothing for the Credit of the so called Confederate States.
25 Witness Says-I never give any aid and comfort to the rebellion.
26 Witness Says-I never was engaged in making aids into the United States from Canada, or in the destruction of the commerce of the United States.
27th. Witness Says I never was engaged in holding in custody any persons taken as prisoners of war by the rebel Government.
28 Witness Says-I never was a member of any society for the imprisonment or persecution of any person on account of their loyalty to the United States.
29 Witness Says-I never was a paroled prisoner of the United States.
30 Witness Says, I never held any Office in the United States, nor educated at any Military or Naval School, of the U.S.
31 Witness Says-I never received any pass from the Confederate Government.
32 Witness Says-I had no disabilities imposed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. I have held no office since the War.
33. Witness Says, My sympathies were all the time for the Union, and against rebellion. I did not vote at all on the Ordinance of Secession. After its adoption I went for the Union and against the State
34th Witness says-I do declare that from the beginning of hostilities against the United States to the end, my sympathies were constantly with the Union, and that I never sought or attempted to do anything injure or retard its success, that I was at all times ready and willing if called upon to aid and assist the Union cause, so far as my means, power and the circumstances of the case permitted. Further this deponent saith not. Sept. 13, 1871.
John Price
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 13th day of Sept AD 1871.
WG Riley (US Commissioner) Special Commissioner from the State of Va.
Testimony: William Price
Deposition of William Price to prove the taking of the property mentioned in the petition
Ques. 1st. Witness Says-I am 20 years old, I reside in Augusta, Co, Va. I am a farmer by trade-I have known the claimant John Price all my life. I was present and saw the property specified in the petition was taken. The property was taken in 1864 in the month of June, by Soldiers belonging to Genl. Averill's command.
6th. Witness Says-I do not know whether there were any Officers present or not, but think there was an officer present but do not know his rank.
7th. Witness Says-I think there were officers and soldiers engaged the horses were rode away.
8 Witness Says, The Horses were rode off, and the Cattle were drove.
9th. Witness Says It was removed in the direction of Lexington Va. I did not follow or see any portion of it afterwards.
10th. Witness Says, The property was taken for the use of the Army. I did not see the property after it was taken.
11 Witness Says-There was no complaint made.
12 Witness Says-There was no receipt asked for.
13 Witness Says-The property was taken about 12 Oclock in the day.
14 Witness Says There was no encampment near there, nor had there been any battle or skirmish I knew no Quartermaster.
15th. Witness Says, The horses were in pretty good condition, and the cattle in first rate order. The grey Stallion, was 5 years old and worth $250. or $260. The bay Horse, was 7 years old and worth $175. One Heifer 3 years old, was worth $20.00 5 head of Cattle, they were worth 15$ a piece-$75.
22nd Witness says-The property was taken for the use of the Army and I think the Government should pay for it.
Further this deponent saith not.
Sept 13, 1871 Will Price
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 13th day of Sept AD 1871.
WG Riley (US Commissioner) Special Commissioner from the State of Va.
Testimony: David Sansabaugh
Deposition of David Sansabaugh, introduced to prove the loyalty of Claimant to the United States.
Ques. 1st. Witness Says I am 45 years old. I reside in Augusta Co. Va. I am a farmer by trade. I have known the Claimant all my life. I live about 1 1/4 mile from him and saw him frequently and talked with him about the war, he was always opposed to the War. And so regarded by his neighbors. His son was shot at in attempting to get through the lines to the North, by the Confederates and captured and died in Staunton a short time thereafter. He never done anything for the Union Cause, except having a son in the Union Army. He was engaged often in helping soldiers and men to get out of the rebel lines. He never done anything in aid of the rebel cause.
He was too loyal to the United States, to ever have been as at all loyal to the confederate States.
General Interrogatory.
Do you know of any other matter relative to this claim that you have not answered?
Answer. I know of no other testimony.
Further this deponent saith not.
David Sansebaugh
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 13th day of September 1871.
Wm G Riley US Commissioner, and Special Commissioner for the State of Virginia
I hereby certify that the foregoing ten (10) pages of depositions (including this certificate) of the claimant and his witnesses, were taken by me at the time and place and in the manner before named.
Wm G Riley Special Commr.
Testimony: Claimant's Brief on Loyalty
COURT OF CLAIMS. DECEMBER TERM 1894-95.
John Price, vs. The United States No. 8607 Cong.
STATEMENT.
The claimant in this case resided in Augusta Co., Va.
The Commissioners of Claims disallowed his claim, and in their report to Congress state:--
"Mr. John Price lived in Augusta Co., through the war. He appears to have been obnoxious to the rebels and have suffered annoyance from them. His name is on the poll list voting for ratifying the ordinance of secession, though he says he did not vote. Sansbaugh the only witness for his loyalty also voted for secession.
The Commissioners proceed to comment upon the testimony as to merits, and in conclusion state: We reject the claimm".
The claim was transmitted to the Court by the Committee on War Claims Feb. 26th, 1892.
BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
The following testimony was taken in Sept. '71.
CLAIMANT testifies: Age 49; residence Augusta Co., Va. Wagon maker. Resided in the county for the six months prior to April '61 and attended to my business. Resided at the same place from April 1st, '61 to June 1st, '65. Never passed beyond the naval and military lines of the U.S. and entered the rebel lines. Never took any oath to the Confederate states. Took the amnesty oath in '65 at Middlebrook, Augusta Co., Va.. Never asked for a pardon. Never connected with the civil service of the Confederate states. Never held any office or place of trust under the Confederate states. Never held any clerkship, agency or employment for the Confederate states. Never in any capacity in the military or naval service of the Confederacy. (P. 2). I was never an officer, soldier or sailor in the Confederate states. Never furnished a substitute, nor connected with any department or service of the Confederate states. Never had charge of any stores supplies, etc., for the benefit of the Confederacy. I never was in any capacity in the service of the Confederate Govt. Never furnished any stores or supplies for the Confederate Govt. Never gave any information to any one connected with the Confederate Govt. Never employed in the manufacture of any articles whatever for the use of the Confederate army. Never employed in the collection or impressment of supplies, etc., for the benefit of the Confederate army. (P. 4). Never engaged in blockade running. I did not leave the Confederate states at no time during the war. I never owned any interest in any vessel for any use. Never arrested by the Confederate Govt. or any of its authorities. Never arrested by the U.S. Govt. Had some forage taken by the Confederates, never paid for it. Some Confederate soldiers threatened to shoot myself and my wife. They drew pistols to do so and made an attempt to set fire to my house, because of my Union sentiments. My premises were searched frequently and on one occasion when my son was a corpse they annoyed the family very much. (P. 4). Had one son in the U.S. Army, and a son a few weeks in the Confederate army, but he did nothing at all. I never furnished either of them anything. Never owned a Confederate bond, done nothing for the credit of the Confederate states. Never gave any aid or comfort to the rebellion. Never engaged in making raids into the U.S. from Canada. Never engaged in holding in custody any person taken as prisoner of war by the rebel Govt. Never a member of any society for the impressment of any person on account of their loyalty to the U.S. Never a paroled prisoner of the U.S. (P. 5). I never held any office in the U.S. nor educated at any military or naval school of the U.S.. Never received any pass from the Confederate Govt. I had no disabilities imposed by the 14th amendment. My sympathies were all the time for the Union and against rebellion. I did not vote at all on the ordinance of secession. After its adoption I went for the Union and against the state. I do declare that from the beginning of hostilities against the U.S. to the end my sympathies were constantly with the Union, and I never sought or attempted to do anything to injure said cause, but was at all times ready and willing to aid the Union cause. (P. 6).
DAVID SAUSABAUGH testifies: Age 46; residence Augusta Co., Va., farmer. lived about 1-1/4 mile from claimant, saw him frequently and talked with him about the war, he was always opposed to the war, and so regarded by his neighbors. His son was shot at in attempting to get through the lines to the North by the Confederates and captured and died in Staunton a short time thereafter. (P. 9). He never done anything for the Union cause, except having a son in the Union army. He was engaged often in helping soldiers and men to get out of the rebel lines. He never done anything in aid of the rebel cause. He was too loyal to the U.S. to ever have been loyal to the Confederate States. (P. 10).
The following testimony has been taken since the reference of the claim to the Court. On Nov. 6th, 1895.
MICHAEL WEAVER testifies: Farmer; age 69; residence Moffat's Creek, Va., Not interested or related. (P. 1). I knew the claimant all my life, up to the time of his death. I lived in sight of claimant andd saw him pretty much every day. I could holler to him from his house to mine. That was from 1848 to to the time of his death. Conversed with him about the war. He said the South would be whipped and he would have nothing to do with it. He said he wanted to see the Union side win. He was more of a Union man than 20 other men put together. He was known as a Union man by every body. He made no secret of it. The Confederates all knew him to be a Union man. They went to his house time and again and turned everything upside down, searching for deserters. He took in Union men when they were seeking to keep away fromm the Confederates, and warned them of the approach of the Confederates. His house was a kind of a gathering place for the Union men. He never was in the Confederate army. He was at home throughout the war. (P. 2). He never owned any slaves He had one son in the Union army in the West and he was killed at Shiloh. He kept his sons concealed in the woods to keep them out of the Confederate service and they were shot at several times by the Confederates He did not vote at all on secession. Claimant had a son by the name of John who lived with him, and old enough to vote at that time, but they paid no attention to the elections. Claimant could not have proved his loyalty to the Confederacy about here, he would have had to go to some other country.
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
I heard claimant say he did not vote on secession. I was a Union man and the claimant knew it. (P. 3). We were both as strong as Union men as could have been. I was in the Confederate army, but not by my own wish. They came and took me out of my own field and took me to the army. Was not in the army so long., about a year. Never in that long at a stretch. Would get away on a furlough or at the hospital sick.. Of course I was bound to go back or desert to the mountains, and finally I deserted to the mountains and kept out that way. I don't know that he ever sold the Confederate QMs. anything. A Union man could stay in this neighborhood, if he did not let it be known too much. We had to keep from giving any body provocation, and we had to keep it to ourselves. A good many did leave the Confederate lines, but claimant had a family and he was too old to go into service, and he staid at home, and followed his trade as wagon maker when he got any work to do He was too old to be conscripted. Suppose he was 60 odd years old during the war. (P. 4). I reckon he would work whenever any body came along on either side, for a man could not let it be known that he worked for only one side of the soldiers. Then he was a good sort of a man friendly disposed towards every body, and when a deserter came along he would know where to get something to eat, as he gave to deserters from both armies if he saw them in need. Claimant's son was in the Union army, was living in the West, he had gone away from home about three years before the war had commenced. He was killed at the battle of Shiloh. (P. 5).
GEO. F. CARWELL testifies: Farmer; age 55; residence Moffatts Creek, Va. Not interested or related. (P. 6). I knew the claimant from '58 till his death. I lived within a mile and a half of him. I had conversations with the claimant during the war, and he expressed himself as a Union man. He was generally known in the community as a Union man, and always so considered. He concealed Union men in his house, and helped them to get across to the Union lines. His house was searched by the Confederates for deserters. There were two John Prices living at Newport the voting precinct and both were old enough to vote, but I don't know whether either of them voted or not. (P. 7). John Price was never in the Confederate army. He never owned any slaves. He could not have proved his loyalty to the Confederacy, if it had succeeded.
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
I know the other John Price was married before the war, and I know he was married after he was 21 years old. He was claimant's son. Claimant's namme is John F. Price, and his son's name was John D. Price. Claimant was a cripple during the war, and I suppose he was forty five about the middle of the war.. I think his son was married in '58, but I won't be positive. I was a Confederate soldiers, served for4 years in the Stonewall Brigade. Claimant and I would often talk about the war and its causes. We were good friends. During the war when I was at home, wounded or on furloughs, I have been at his house often, and we would have our talks. ((P. 8). I would argue for the Confederacy, and he was against it. I don't think I ever heard him mention Stomewall Jackson, but I don't think he admired him. I had no home, was a poor boy and would stay at claimant's some, when home on furlough or wounded. He was always kind to me whenever I would go to see him. I lived in his neighborhood when the war broke out, consequently would go back there on my furlough during the war, and stay around with my friends. I did not hear the claimant abuse the South nor speak in favor of it.
RE-DIRECT.
I suppose he was friendly because I had been a neighbor boy raised up in the neighborhood. He had no feeling against Confederate soldiers as individuals but wanted to see the Union win. (P. 9). He had a son in the Union army, he was killed at Nashville. He enlisted from Ind. having gone West before the war. He helped two of my brothers through the Confederate lines. (P. 10).
SUMMARY.
Claimant in this case was 29 years of age in '61. Resided in Augusta Co., Va., during the war, and was a wagon maker. Never took any oath to the Confederacy. Was not in the Confederate service. Confederates took his forage, but did not pay him for it. Confederate soldiers threatened to shoot him and his wife. Attempted to set fire to his house because of his Union sentiments. Had a son in the Union army. Never owned Confederate bonds. Gave no aid or comfort to the rebellion. In '61 he was for the Union. Did not vote on the ordinance of secession.
His witnesses corroborate the foregoing facts and that in Conversation he always expressed Union sentiments, and that he was known as a Union man by every body. That he aided Union men in avoiding rebel conscription. He kept his sons concealed in the woods to keep them out of the Confederate service.
The proof is absolutely conclusive as to this man's loyalty throughout the war, and there are no grounds whatever upon which to base an adverse decision on the question of loyalty.
Respectfully Submitted, Gilbert Moyers ATTY FOR C'L'M'T.
Testimony: Defendant's Brief on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term 1895.
Jno. Price vs. The United States. No. 8607 Cong.
DEFENDANT'S BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
The evidence is correctly abstracted in claimant's brief on loyalty.
The reports of the Treasury and War Departments both show disloyal acts of a person or persons named Jno. Price, but as I am statisfied that none of them is this claimant I will not produce the records at the trial unless the Court shall desire it.
Saml A Putman Assistant Attorney.
Testimony: Claimant's Requests for Findings of Fact
COURT OF CLAIMS. DECEMBER TERM 1895-96.
John Price, vs. The United States No. 8607 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 case requests the Court to find the same as follows:-
I. That the claimant, John Price, a citizen of the United States, residing in Augusta Co., Va., did not give any aid or comfort to the rebellion during the late war, but was throughout that period loyal to the Government of the United States.
II. That during the said period the United States forces by proper authority took from him for their use the following property of the value stated, to wit: 2 horses and 6 head of cattle, $370.00.
III. That no payment has been made for said property or any portion thereof.
Gilbert Moyers, Atty. for claimant.
Testimony: Claimant's Brief on Merits
COURT OF CLAIMS. DECEMBER TERM 1895-96.
John Price, vs. The United Stats No. 8607 Cong.
STATEMENT.
The claimant in this case resided in Augusta Co., Va.
The Commissioners of Claims rejected the claim because they were not convinced of loyalty or the taking of the property.
The claim was transmitted to the Court by the Committee on War Claims, Feb. 26th, 1892.
The claimant was held loyal by the Court Nov. 2, 1896.
BRIEF ON MERITS.
It is alleged in the petition that there was taken from the claimant June 10th, 1864 1 gray stallion 5 years old, $250.00; 1 bay horse 7 years old, 125.00; 1 three year old heifer, 20.00; 5 two year old cattle, $15 each, 75.00; Total, $470.00
The following testimony was taken while the claim was pending before the Commissioners of Claims, in Sept. 1871.
WM. PRICE testifies: Age 20; residence Augusta Co., Va., farmer. I have known the claimant all my life I was present and saw the property specified in the petition taken. Taken in '64, June., by soldiers belonging to Gen. Averill's command. I don't know whether there were any officers present or not, think there was an officer present, don't know his rank. I think there were officers and soldiers engaged. The horses were rode away. (P. 7). Cattle drove. Property removed in the direction of Lexington, Va. I did not follow or see any portion of it afterwards.. Property taken for the use of the army. Did not see the property after it was taken. No complaint made No receipt asked for. The property was taken about 12 o'clock in the day. There was no encampment near there, nor had there been any battle or skermish. I knew no Q.M. The horses were in pretty good condition, and the cattle in first rate order. The grey stallion was 5 years old and worth $250. or $26O.. (P. 8). The bay horse was 7 years old and worth $175. One heifer 3 years old, worth $20, 5 head cattle, worth $15 apiece, $75.00 The property was taken for the use of the army, and I think the Govt. should pay for it. (P. 9).
The following testimony has been taken since the reference of the claim to the Court in Jan. 1897.
MARY J. TAYLOR testifies: housekeeper; Age 53; residence Augusta Co., Va., Interested. Claimant's daughter. (P. 1). I was living with the claimant at the time and saw the property taken. Property carried away by Union troops in Uniform. There was an officer with the party. The officer said it would be all paid for. Property never returned or paid for. The Union army did not go into camp until evening some distance from there, but passed and took the property about the middle of the day. The horses and cattle were in good condition. I think the amount stated is a fair value for each of the articles charged for. (P. 2).
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
I would say the stallion was worth $250 at the time it was taken. Another bay horse, some cattle, six in number, one heifer and five other cattle were taken. The bay house was valued at $150.00 John Price was the legal owner of this property. Union soldiers took the property. Don't know their names. Never heard the name of the officer. Any body could tell he was an officer. That is what they called him. I don't know whether he was an officer or not. All the rest that came with him called him an officer, and he looked different from the others I don't know exactly how many soldiers cams for the cattle, a good many. Mr. Price's house was along side the road, and when the army came by some soldiers left the ranks and took the stock. (P. 3). The men that came after these cattle, horses, etc., were in front of the army, and after getting the things they went on. I don't know whether they went into the ranks of the army or not. I don't know anything about the burning. These men belonged to the army. They didn't belong to the ranks. They were in front of the army. I don't remember what year of the war this was. I don't know who was in command, it was the Union army though. The men who took the cattle, horses, etc., had other cattle, horses, etc, along with them when they stopped at the house. I don't know how many. Didn't count them. It was a good many. Don't know how many came to the house after the cattle. There were as many as five there was a good many along, but I don't know how many. (P. 4).
RE-DIRECT.
An officer was not directly with the party, but he told father he would get pay for his horses.
RE-CROSS.
This man was in front of the army, but was with it. He told father that he would get pay. I heard this conversation myself. Father did not try to get him to pay for these things. Never went to him for pay or to find out how to get pay. I reckon he thought it was no use.
RE-DIRECT.
(P. 5). The army went on shortly after this man had told my father about the paying for it, and no, I don't reckon my father knew where to go to see this man.
RE-CROSS.
Large army following these things. I reckon my father knew the army camped some place, but didn't know how far. They camped about 15 miles from our house, Don't know how long. (P. 6).
SARAH A. TROXELL testifies: Housekeeper- age, 48; residence Rockingham Co., Va., Interested. Daughter of claimant. (P. 7). I was living with my father and saw the property in question carried away by Union troops. Carried away by regular soldiers, by the Union army. The cattle were in good condition and were young. Also the horses. Property taken by soldiers of the regular army. I don't know whether there was an officer along or not. An officer came along afterwards and told my father that he would get pay for it. Property carried off for the use of the army. Think the property was worth the prices charged.
CROSS-EXAMINATION. (P. 8).
A gray horse, bay horse, heifer and five other cattle were taken from the claimant. I saw my father talking to the officer and heard him too. Father was down to the road when he came along, and my father told him that he had taken his horses, cattle, etc., and he told him he would get pay for them. He Said the Northern army would pay for them. He didn't say when he would get pay. I don't know what army it was that came along. Army going East coming from the North. We didn't have any battle around here. (P. 9).
SUMMARY.
Wm. Price saw the horses and the cattle taken by Federal soldiers in June '64 belonging to Gen. Averils command. Thinks there was an officer present. They rode the horses away and drove the cattle. Taken for the use of the army. Horses in good condition. Cattle fine order. One of the horses was five years old worth $250 or $260. The other horse seven years old worth $175. One of the cattle was a three year old heifer, worth $20.00 Five of the cattle were worth $15 each. All taken for the use of the army. (P. 2).
Mary J. Taylor, daughter of claimant, saw all this property taken, and the officer said at the time that it would be paid for. That the horses and cattle were in good condition. Values one of the horses at $250 and the other at $150. Testifies to the taking of six head of cattle number charged for. (P. 3). That there was a good many soldiers engaged in the taking.(P. 4).
Mrs. Troxell, daughter of claimant, testifies, that she saw the property charged for taken by Union troops. Cattle and Horses in good condition. (P. 5). That there was an officer along and that he told her father he would get pay for the property. Testifies to the taking of two horses and six head of cattle.
This testimony is conclusive in establishing the taking for the use of the army 2 serviceable horses, and six head of cattle in June 1864. For one of the horses there should be allowed at least $150, for the other $125. The price charged for the cattle is reasonable, and for the six head there should be allowed $95.
The account should therefore be stated as follows:--2 horses, $275.00; 6 head cattle, 95.00; Total, $370.00
Respectfully Submitted, Gilbert Moyers ATTY FOR C'L'M'T.
Testimony: Motion to Dismiss
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term, 1898.
John Price -vs- The United States. No. 8607 Cong.
Motion to Dismiss.
Now comes the defendant, by its Assistant Attorney-General, and moves that the said case be dismissed for non-prosecution, for that it appears that the case was transmitted to this court February 26, 1892. The claimant has been found loyal and the claimant's brief and request for findings of fact was filed January 14, 1897, but although repeatedly requested to do so he has filed no petition in the case whereby it is impossible for the defendant to prepare the case for trial.
L.T. Pendt Assistant Attorney-General.
Alexr. H. Button Attorney in charge of case.
Testimony: Defendant's Motion for a New Trial on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
John Price v. The United States No. 8607, Congressional.
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON LOYALTY. [filed October 9, 1901]
Come now the defendants by their Attorney-General and move the court to set aside the finding of loyalty made in the above entitled cause November 2, 1896, and for grounds of which motion are assigned:-
1. That the court erred in making such a finding.
2. That such finding is contrary to the law and the evidence on which the case was submitted.
L.T. Pendt Assistant Attorney-General
Jas. A. Tanner Attorney in charge of case.
BRIEF ON MOTION
This case was submitted on the issue of loyalty October 28, 1896, and the claimant was found loyal November 2 following. At the time of the submission of the case, certain matters of record were not called to the attention of the court; and believing there were this done the same could but result in the court reversing their finding, I hereby beg leave to respectfully submit the following points to their consideration.
It is of record that in 1871 the claimant stated under oath that he never sold any supplies whatever to the Confederate Government or to any agent or agents of the same. He admits, with seeming frankness, that he did have forage taken from him by the Confederates, but that he was never paid anything for the same. (Record, p. 4; Abstract p. 2.) And yet it appears from the report of the Record and Pension Office of the War Department under date of December 4, 1897, that there are on file in the Confederate archives eight different vouchers signed "John Price," and inspection of the same shows indisputably that to five of the eight in question is attached the signature of the claimant in this case. It is true that these vouchers are all for small sums, the aggregate amount involved being but $238.30$233.89. But were this total one hundred times as much, their importance in the case at this moment could be no greater, for in themselves they establish the fact that the claimant's statements under oath are not to be accepted. A list of these vouchers is to be found hereunto annexed. They will be submitted to the inspection of the court upon the argument of this motion.
In 1871 the claimant likewise testified that when the Ordinance of Secession was submitted to the vote of the people of Virginia for ratification or rejection, he did not vote at all upon it. He states no reason for this alleged non-exercise of his right of suffrage. It would, perhaps, not have been easy to explain, for the records of the vote on that question show that not a few of the citizens of Augusta County, wherein claimant resided, voted against the ratification of the Ordinance. As a matter of fact, however, the records show that John Price did vote upon this question and voted, too, in favor of ratifying the Ordinance. (See report of Treasury Department filed May 13, 1892.)
Claimant's counsel attempts to overcome this by bringing forward a witness, one George F. Carwell, who states that there were two John Prices living at Newport, the claimant's home, and that both were old enough to vote; that the name of one of these, the claimant, was John F. Price and that the other was his son, John D. Price.
We have simply the statement of the witness Carwell that the latter is correct. But whether or not this be so is really not a matter of comment. It suffices to point out that all the papers of record in the case bearing the claimant's name are signed by him "John Price," and this is the name he attached to the Confederate vouchers hereinbefore referred to. It must therefore be presumed that under this name he voted upon the ratification of the Ordinance of Secession, if vote he did.
But one John Price voted in Augusta County upon the question of the ratification of the Ordinance of Secession, and he voted in favor of ratification. John D. Price, his son, the records in the Treasury Department show, likewise voted upon this question, and voted, as did his sire, in favor of the same. The name John F. Price does not appear upon the list of those voting on that occasion. (See report Treasury Department on loyalty, dated Oct. 2, 1901.)
But one witness, Michael Weaver, attempts to corroborate claimant's statement relative to the non-user of his right of suffrage on the question of the ratification. This witness asked to state if he knows how the claimant voted on the question, answered positively "he did not vote at all;" but upon cross-examination asked how he knew this to be so, answered simply "I heard him say so." His testimony upon this point is, of course, worthless. And in the absence of any corroborative proof whatever from either of the two other witnesses, Sansebaugh and Carwell, it would seem to me that at least a prima facie case has been made out against the claimant on this point by means of the records cited heretoforeinbefore.
The testimony in the case in support of claimant's loyalty is in general very weak. David Sansebaugh testifies to conversations with the claimant, but fails to state the purport of the same. He does, however, state that claimant was opposed to the war and was so regarded by his neighbors; also that claimant "was engaged often in helping soldiers and men get out of the rebel lines." Again there is to be noted the utter absence of detail. Other than these general statements of the witness, his statements only negatively support the claimant's contention of loyalty. And while referring to this witness it might, perhaps, be considered adviseable to remind the court that Sansebaugh himself has already been pronounced disloyal,-this in the case of David Sansebaugh v. United States, No. 8610, Congressional.
The testimony of the next witness, Michael Weaver, is most seriously discredited by one thing in particular. The witness claims the utmost intimacy with claimant's decedent and states that he lived within sight of him and saw him "pretty much every day: I could holler to him from his house to mine; that was from 1848 to the time of his death." (Claimant's Brief on Loyalty, p. 4.)
Upon cross-examination this witness, who himself served for two years in the Confederate army (he confesses to but one year's service, it is to be noted. Claimant's Brief on Loyalty, p. 5) was asked:-
Could you and claimant have left the Confederate lines during the war easily?
He eliminates that part of the question which applies to himself and answers:-
A good many did go, but he (claimant) had a family and he was too old to go into the service and so he stayed at home and followed his trade as a wagonmaker when he could get any work to do. He was too old to be conscripted.
Ques. How old was he during the war?
Ans. I suppose 60 odd years old. (Testimony filed Nov. 18, 1895, p. 4).
As a matter of fact, which is of record, (Claimant's Brief on Loyalty, p. 1) claimant's decedent, with home this witness claims such an intimate acquaintance, as above noted, testifying in 1871, stated his then age as 49. It accordingly follows that in 1861, at the outbreak of the war, claimant's decedent was but 39 years of age; and I respectfully submit that, such being the case, if this man Weaver could not give testimony either more truthful or more accurate, as the case may be, than the foregoing relation to claimant's age, then his whole testimony, without exception, can not necessarily be deemed of any importance in assisting this court in arriving at a determination of the question under discussion.
The witness Carwell testifies to loyal conversation by claimant's decedent and the fact that he concealed Union men in his house and helped to get them across the Union lines, etc. (Claimant's Brief on Loyalty, p. 6).. The witness displays a rather astoundingly intimate knowledge of the claimant's daily life, considering the fact that he confesses to having served four years in the Confederate army under "Stonewall" Jackson. He states, too, that he and claimant remained good friends throughout the war, and that whenever he (witness) was at home, whether wounded or on furlough, he visited at the claimant's house and conversed with him,- that he would stay at claimant's house, and take his meals there, etc. (Claimant's Brief on Loyalty, p. 7.) But the witness alleges that all these kindnesses were shown him simply because he (the witness) "had been a neighbor boy raised up in the neighborhood."
This witness' testimony may, I think, best be summed up by reference to his concluding statement upon cross-examination, which was to the effect that he never heard claimant's decedent either abuse the South or speak in favor of it.
Claimant, it appears (Claimant's Brief on Loyalty, p. 3) had two sons who fought in the great civil war on opposite sides. One of these was in the Union army and was killed at Shiloh; but he, it is testified (Claimant's Brief on Loyalty, p. 6) left home about three years before the war commenced and at the outbreak of the same, when he enlisted, was living in the West. The son who enlisted in the Confederate army was the John D. Price who, with his father, voted in favor of the Ordinance of Secession, and this son went direct from his father's home into the Confederate army.
It is respectfully submitted that the testimony of record is such as would necessarily preclude the court from making a finding favorable to the claimant upon the issue of loyalty. A new trial upon the issue of loyalty, it seems to me, should be allowed.
Jas. A. Tanner Assistant Attorney.
Memoranda of Vouchers on File in the Confederate Archives of the Record and Pension Office Signed by Claimant's Decedent.
One voucher dated Lewsiburg, Va., March 20, 1863, for bacon, $108.
One voucher dated same place, April 31, 1863, for hay, $65.
One voucher dated Meadow Bluff, Feb. Va., Nov. 4, 1861, for forage, $6.85.
One voucher dated same place, October 18, 1863, for forage, $45.
One voucher dated Staunton, Va., Dec. 11, 1863, for hauling, $9.04.
Total, $233.89.
Testimony: Reply to Defendant's Brief
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term 1900-01
JOHN PRICE VS THE UNITED STATES No. 8607 Congressional.
REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S BRIEF ON MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.
Loyalty was found in this case on November 2nd, 1896.
Claimant's brief on merits was filed on January 16th, 1897; over four years have elapsed without this case being prepared by the defense on merits, and now Defendant's counsel comes with a motion for a new trial on loyalty. The contention that this claimant was disloyal is absurd; absolutely nothing in it. The evidence was conclusive as the Court found on the question of loyalty, showing unmistakably that this claimant was a union man throughout the entire war and loyal to the United States.
Now there is lugged into the case, at this late day, a document showing that one John Price voted for secession in the precinct where this claimant lived. That proves nothing in the light of the testimony showing that there was another John Price living in that same place in the time of the war; voted at that precinct, and the presumption is that this was the party who voted for secession, because claimant says he did not vote at all. He is corroberated as to this fact. [Handwritten in margin: This question was brought to the attention of the court when its finding of loyalty was made as is shown by the report of the Commissioners of Claims]
The language of claimant is, "I did not vote at all on the ordinance of secession." Claimant had a son in the union army.
MR. CARWELL testifies that there were two John Price's living at Newberg, in the same precinct and both old enough to vote; so there can be no question about claimant not having voted for secession.
There is nothing whatever in the defense, and this motion should be at once overruled and the case ordered to the trial calendar on merits. The delay in this case is absolutely inexcusable. It belongs to a class of cases that fall into the hands of an attorney who holds them indefinitely without any preparation, and no disposition to prepare them on the part of the defense, and I think it about time that these protracted delays in the preparation of cases should cease.
It is unpleasant to practice law in a Court where the defense is allowed an indefinite period for the preparation of cases for trial. The motion should be overruled without argument.
Respectfully submitted, Gilbert Moyerts Attorney for claimant.
Testimony: Defendant's Brief on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES.
J.L. McCutchen, Adm'r, Est. John Price, Dec'd, v. The United States No. 8607, Congressional.
DEFENDANTS' BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
Heretofore, to wit, December 2, 1901, the defendants' motion for a new trial on loyalty in the above entitled case was allowed by the court. Since then nothing whatever has been done by claimant's counsel.
Counsel for defendants, with a view to expediting the case, accordingly request the court to consider the brief filed by him October 8, 1901, in support of his motion for a new trial on loyalty, as his present brief on loyalty.
Respectfully submitted, Jas. A. Tanner Assistant Attorney.
Testimony: Motion to Place on Calendar
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES.
Est. J. Price v. The United States No. 8607, Congressional.
MOTION TO PLACE ON CALENDAR. [filed March 23, 1904]
Come now the defendants, by their Attorney General, and move the court to place the above entitled case upon the calendar, and for cause show that the claimant, in violation of the 93rd rule of court, has neglected, within the two years after the filing of his petition, to close his proof and give notice to the Attorney General.
L.T. Pendt Assistant Attorney General.
Jas. A. Tanner Attorney in Charge of Case.
BRIEF.
Heretofore, to wit, December 2, 1901, the court allowed the defendants' motion for a new trial on loyalty. Since then claimant's counsel has failed to file either evidence or any brief upon the issue of loyalty.
Incidentally, it might be noted that October 30, 1902, defendants' counsel filed a brief on loyalty, hoping that by so doing he could prod claimant's counsel into some degree of activity in his conduct in the case; but nothing has resulted therefrom.
It is respectfully submitted that in accordance with the 93rd rule of this court, this case must be put upon the calendar and the issue at bar determined without further delay.
Jas. A. Tanner Assistant Attorney.
Bibliographic Information : Southern Claims Commission: Claim of John Price, September 14, 1871, Claim No. 6902, Source copy consulted: National Archives, Washington, D.C., RG 123, Congressional Jurisdiction #8612.
