Summary: Kilbourn Rowsey filed his claim in Augusta County, where he resided at the time, but during the war he lived in Rockbridge County. His claim for blacksmith tools and a saddle was disallowed by the Commission in 1879 for lack of evidence. He appealed this decision, apparently successfully, in 1903.
Items Claimed:
| Item Claimed: | Amount Claimed: | Amount Allowed: | Amount Disallowed: |
| 3 sets Smiths tools complete | 300.00 | 0 | 300.00 |
| 200 lbs steel at 30cts | 60.00 | 0 | 60.00 |
| Horse shoes & nails | 20.00 | 0 | 20.00 |
| set brace & bits | 6.00 | 0 | 6.00 |
| 2 screw plates | 20.00 | 0 | 20.00 |
| one large drill | 10.00 | 0 | 10.00 |
| 300 lb Iron | 30.00 | 0 | 30.00 |
| Drawing knives saw & chains | 10.00 | 0 | 10.00 |
| saddle & 2 bridles | 15.00 | 0 | 15.00 |
| Tools and other contents of a blacksmith shop | 471.00 | 0 | 471.00 |
Claims Summary:
There is some evidence lending to the support of Claimants loyalty. But without passing on the sufficiency of the evidence on that question we are constrained to reject the Claim on defect of proof as to the property. The only evidence on that point is Claimant's wife, who swears that the army stopped on the march and the soldiers broke open the door at the shop and took the tools etc. and put them into the wagons. She don't know who commandant was, and don't testify what tools were taken nor to their value. The evidence is too meagre and defective to justify an allowance. We therefore reject the claim.
AO Aldis, JB Howell, O. Ferriss Com of Claims
Testimony: Kilburn H. Rowsey
Deposition of K.H. Rowsey
My name is Kilburn H. Rowsey jr., my age 43 years, my residence Moffett's Creek, Augusta Co., in the State of Va., and my occupation a Blacksmith; I am the claimant, and have a beneficial interest in the claim.
Ques. 2 Ans. I resided part of the time in Rockbridge County, Va. part in Clarksburg & Martinsburg W. Va. and a part in Augusta Co.
3 Ans. I never passed beyond the lines of the U.S. into the rebel lines, but was in the rebel lines when the war commenced.
4 Ans. I was forced to take an oath as a citizen of Virginia. The Malitia was called out, and required to take the oath or be sent to Richmond. I do not recollect the purport of the Oath.
5 Ans. I took the Amnesty Oath, at Clarksburg W. Va. Oct 28 1864, prescribed by the Presidents Proclamation. (see Certificate herewith filed) I never asked any pardon.
6 Ans. I never was in any way connected with the civil service of the Confederacy.
7 Ans. I never held any office, or place of honor or trust in the Confederate Government, State or Territory subordinate thereto.
8 Ans. I held no clerkship, agency or employment of any kind.
9 Ans. I was called out as a Malitia, and only remained a few days at Lexington Va. and returned to my home.
10 Ans. I never was an Officer or Soldier in the Confederate Army.
11 Ans. Only as stated in question 9th.
12 Ans. I never was in the Home Guard, or in any committee whatsoever.
13 Ans. I was conscripted but did not go into service.
14 Ans. I furnished no substitute.
15 Ans. I never was in any way connected with the Quarter Master's, Commissary or in any department of the Confederate Army or Government.
16 Ans. I never was employed on a Rail road, nor aided in transporting soldiers munitions of War or supplies for the Confederate Government.
17 Ans. I never had charge of any stores or supplies--trains, teams, waggons, or Boats, for the use of the Confederacy.
18 Ans. I never was in any employment or business of any character, and never furnished any supplies or stores whatsoever. I never give any information.
19 Ans. I never was employed in the manufacture of any thing for the use of the Confederacy. Nor aided others.
20 Ans. I never was directly or otherwise employed in any way whatsoever.
Ques. 21 Ans. I never run the blockade, nor engaged in any trade between the lines, and had no share or interest in such trafic.
22 Ans. I left the Confederate lines on the 18th day of October 1864, I went to Beverly W. Va. thence to Clarksburg W. Va. I left because of my opposition to the rebel cause. I did not return until after the War closed in 1865. I worked at my trade, in Martinsburg I was in the employment of the U.S. Government.
23 Ans. I never owned or had any share in any vessel.
24 Ans. I never was arrested by either the Confederate or United States authorities.
25 Ans. I never had any property taken by the Confederate Authorities.
26 Ans. There were some threats, made by citizens and neighbors, to send me to Richmond to Castle Thunder.
27 Ans. I never was molested.
28 Ans. I never contributed anything in aid of the United States, or the Union Army.
29 Ans. I never did anything.
30 Ans. I had a brother, Thomas J. Rowsey, he is dead. I give him nothing at all. I had two brothers in the Union Army, Wm. L. Rowsey & Saml. J. Rowsey. Wm is dead and Samuel lives in Kanawha Valley W. Va.
Ques. 31 Ans. I never owned any bonds nor had a interest in them.
32 Ans. I never give any aid or comfort to the Rebellion
33 Ans. I never engaged in making raids from any place or for any purpose.
34 Ans. I never was engaged in holding any person as prisoners of War, for any cause.
35 Ans. I never belonged to any society or association for any purpose whatever.
36 Ans. I never was a paroled prisoner.
37 Ans. I never held any office, and was not educated in any Military or Naval School.
38 Ans. I never had a pass at all.
39 Ans. I was under no disabilities. I have not held any Office since the War.
40 Ans. My Sympathies were all the time with the Union cause. My feelings were bitter toward secession. My influence was exerted against Secession. I did not vote for the ratification of the Ordinance of Secession, after its adoption I still adhered to the Union.
Ques. 41 Ans. 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; and that I never of my own free will and accord did any thing, or offered or sought or attempted to do anything by word or deed to injure said cause or retard its success, and I was ready at all times when called upon, or if called upon to aid and assist the cause of the Union or its supporters so far as my means and power and the circumstances of the case permitted. I have never been in Bankruptcy.
I was not present when my property was taken. I saw the Army when at my house. My Shop was on the road leading from Staunton to Lexington. It was General Hunter's Army. I think it was on the 11th day of June 1864, about 9 Oclock A.M. I did not see anything taken. The only one present and saw them taking the property was my wife, Amanda F. Rowsey.
Kilburn H Rowsey Jr
Testimony: Sidney M. Campbell
Deposition of Sidney M. Campbell.
Answer to general question.
My name is Sidney M Campbell, my age is 40 years. My residence Moffetts Creek Augusta Co. Va. My occupation a School Teacher. I am not related to the claimant and have no interest in the claim.
I have known the claimant since 1845. I did not know him during the War, as I was in W. Va. most of the time. I never met with him during the War. I met with him during the War. I met with him in 1868, and had a conservation with him in reference to the war. Subsequently I learned from him that he was a member of the "U.H. of K of A" Society, and had taken the first degree in the society, and from that I knew that he must have been a loyal man during the rebellion, as it was conferred on no one but loyal men, and since my acquaintance with him, I have found him acting invariably with the Republican party, when an oppertunity presented though surrounded with difficulties, which prevented him from doing much.
Sidney M. Campbell
Testimony: Anderson Hutchens
Deposition of Anderson Hutchens.
Answer to general Question.
My name is Anderson Hutchens, my age is 40 years. My residence is Moffett's Creek, Augusta Co. Va. by occupation a farmer.
I have known the claimant since the close of the War. I did not know him during the War. I believe from what I have seen of him that he was a loyal man during the War, and since my acquaintance with him, he has invariably cooperated with the Union party in all elections, which satisifies me that he was a loyal during the war, for a man to cooperate with that party in the South, since would have to have as strong a nerve as to be a Union man during the War. I have never heard his loyalty doubted by any one, and is regarded by all the Democrats in the neighborhood as an uncompromising Radical.
Anderson Hutchens
Testimony: Amanda F. Rowsey
Deposition of Amanda F. Rowsey.
Answer to first general question.
My name is Amanda F. Rowsey, my age is 43 years. I reside at Moffetts Creek. I am the wife of the claimant.
I was present when the property charged in claimants account was taken. I saw the Articles taken by the Army. My husband had locked the door of his shop, and when the Army stopped the soldiers broke the door down, and took the tools from the Shop and put them into the Wagons. It was in the month of June 1864. I do not recollect the day. I did not hear the name of the General. It was a very large Army. There were a number of Soldiers engaged in carrying the tools out of the Shop to the wagons, I suppose they were about half an hour in removing the tools. I saw a number of Officers present but heard no names. I did not hear any thing said, I did not hold any conversation with any one in the Army. The Army was marching toward Lexington and coming from the direction of Staunton. There had not been any battle in the neighborhood that I recollect of. I made no complaint to any one, and did not ask for any receipt. There was no one present except my children. The tools were taken about 10 Oclock A.M. All taken openly as though it belonged to them. There was no encampment. The Army merely halted a short time. The tools were all in good condition, so was the Saddle and bridles.
Amanday F Rowsey
Testimony: Claimant's Brief on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
KILBOURN H. ROWSEY, vs. THE UNITED STATES. 8608 Congressional.
CLAIMANT'S BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
This claim originated in Augusta County, Virginia. It was originally filed before the Commissioners of Claims, who did not pass on the question of claimant's loyalty but rejected the claim because the proof of the taking property was not satisfactory.
The testimony which was before the Commissioners, having been taken in May 1874, on the question of loyalty was as follows:
KILBOURN H. ROWSBY, the claimant, testifies: Residence Moffett's Creek, Augusta County, Va. (Page l). Blacksmith. During the war resided part of the time in Rockbridge County, Virginia, part of the time in Clarksburg and Martinsburg, West Virginia, and part of the time in Augusta County, Virginia. Never passed beyond the lines of the United States into the rebel lines, but was in the rebel lines when the war commenced. Was forced to take an oath as a citizen of Virginia. The Militia were called out and required to take the oath or be sent to Richmond. Does not recollect the purport of the oath. Took the amnesty oath prescribed by the President's proclamation at Clarksburg, West Virginia, October 28th 1864. Never asked for any pardon. (Questions 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 & 12 answered favorably to loyalty). Was called out as a member of the Militia; remained a few days only at Lexington, Virginia and returned to his home. (Page 2). Was conscripted but did not go into service. (Questions 14 to 21 inclusive, answered favorably to loyalty Page 3). Left the Confederate lines on October 18th 1864. Went to Beverly, West Virginia, then to Clarksburg, West Virginia. Left because of his opposition to the cause. Did not return until in 1865, after the war closed. Worked in Martinsburg at his trade and was in the employment of the United States Government. Was never arrested by either Confederate or United States authorities. Never had any property taken by Confederate authorities. Some threats were wade by citizens and neighbors to send him to Richmond to Castle Thunder; never was arrested on account of his Union sentiments. Never contributed anything in aid of the United States or the Union army. Never did anything in aid of the Confederate Government or army. Had a brother, J. R. Rowsey now dead, who was in the Confederate army. Gave him nothing at all. Had two brothers William L., and Samuel J. Rowsey in the Union army. William L., is now dead. Samuel J. lives in Kanawha Valley, West Virginia. (Page 4). (Questions 31 to 37 inclusive answered favorably to loyalty). Never took passes from Confederate authorities. Asked for no pardons because he was under no disabilities. Has not held any office since the war. His sympathies all the time were with the Union cause. His feelings were bitter toward secession. His influence was exerted against secession. Did not vote for the ratification of the ordinance of secession. After the adoption of the ordinance, still adhered to the Union. (Page 5). His sympathies were constantly with the cause of the Union States, and he did not of his own free will do or attempt to do anything against that cause but was ready at all times to aid it or its supporters so far as his means and power and the circumstances permitted. (Page 6).
SIDNEY M. CAMPBELL testifies. Age 40 years. Residence Moffett's Creek, Augusta County, Virginia. Not related to the claimant or interested in the claim. Has known claimant since 1845. Did not know him during the war, being in West Virginia most of the time. Never met him during the war. Met him in 1868 and had a conversation with in reference to the war. Subsequently learned from him that he was a member of the "U. H. of K. of A" Society and had taken the first degree in the Society. From that know he must have been a loyal man during the re-rebellion, as membership in this society was conferred on none but loyal men. Since becoming acquainted with claimant has found him invariably acting with the Republican Party when an opportunity presented,. though surrounded with difficulties which prevented him from doing much.
ANDERSON HUTCHENS testifies. Age 40 years. Residence Moffett's Creek, Augusta County, Virginia (Page 7). Has known claimant since the close of the war; did not know him during the war. Believes from what he has seen of claimant that he was a loyal man during the war. Since the deponent's acquaintance with him he has invariably cooperated with the Union Party in all directions, which satisfies deponent that he was loyal during the war, for to cooperate with the Union Party in the South required as strong a nerve as to be a Union man during the war. Has never heard claimant's loyalty doubted by any one. He is regarded by all the Democrats in the neighborhood as an uncomprising radical.
Under the rules of this Court, viz. in December 1899, claimant was again examined and an additional deposition was taken in his behalf. This testimony is as follows:
WILLIAM H. KELLY testifies. Age 56 years. Residence Parkersburg, Virginia. Not related or interested in the claim. (Page l). Resided during the war at Flumen, Rockbridge County, Virginia. Was intimately acquainted with claimant; resided half a mile from him; met him often. Claimant expressed himself in favor of the Union all the time of the war. Cannot tell of anything claimant did in favor of the Union cause except that he kept out of the Confederate army. (Page 2). The public reputation of claimant was that he was a Union man. Witness was a Union man and loyal to the United States. Does not know of claimant being arrested, injured or threatened on account of his loyalty. Claimant exerted his influence in favor of the Union. Does not know how he voted. (Page 3).
KILBOURN H. ROWSEY, the claimant, testifies. Went through the Union lines in October 1864 to Clarksburg, West Virginia. Never took an oath to support the Confederacy. Was never connected with the civil or military service of the Confederacy. Never furnished a substitute for the Confederate army. Never voluntarily gave aid to the Confederacy. When conscripted went through the Union lines to Clarksburg. Was threatened but was never arrested by Confederate authorities. (Page 4).
SUMMARY.
This evidence in entirely in claimant's favor, just as the Commissioners of Claims evidently thought that part of it was which was before then. Claimant, according to his own testimony, was strongly opposed to secession from the outset and during the war remained true to the Union, having no part or lot with the rebellion. Presumably he did not have a vote at all on the ratification of the ordinance of secession; he testifies that he did not vote for the ordinance. (Page 4 sup.). The surroundings at his home in the valley of Virginia were so uncongenial that in October 1864 he went through the Federal lines into loyal territory, where he remained intil after the close of the war. At Martinsburg, West Virginia, he was in the employ of the United States Government. (Pages 2 & 3 sup.).
Of the two brothers of claimant two were in the Federal army and one in the Confederate army, and he gave no assistance to this one who was in the Confederate army. (Page 3 sup.).
It appears that at the outbreak of the war claimant as a member of the State Militia took some sort of oath either to the Confederacy or to Virginia, but he was required to do this, it appears, in order that he might remain at home and not be sent into the service at Richmond. (Page 2 sup.). The witnesses Campbell and Hutchens testify that they knew claimant soon after the war and that at that time and since he has belonged to the party of which the chief tradition, in that part of the country, was loyalty to the Union. at the time of its struggle for existence. Campbell states that claimant belonged to a society in which a condition of membership was loyalty to the Union during the war.
William H. Kelly, examined under the rules of this Court, testifies that he lived within half a mile of claimant during the war and that claimant then often expressed himself to him as in favor of the Union, and that he exerted his influence in favor of the Union; also that his reputation was that of a Union man.
There was no jurisdictional need of any new evidence on loyalty in this case. The new evidence, however, with the old, puts the case beyond doubt and calls for a finding of loyalty.
Respectfully submitted, Gilbert Moyers Attorney for Claimant.
Testimony: Defendant's Brief on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES.
Kilbourn H. Rowsey v. THE UNITED STATES. No. 8608 Cong.
DEFENDANT'S BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
The abstract of testimony prepared by claimant's counsel is substantially correct. The records of the War Department do not shed any light on the question of claimant's loyalty. He claims that his sympathies were at the time with the Union fellows, and that he exerted his influence against secession, but says nothing about how he voted at the first election. He says, however, that he did not vote for the ratification of the ordinance of secession. (Page 4, claimant's brief.) He had two brothers in the Union army and one brother in the Confederate army. (Page 3, claimant's brief.) Was never arrested by either army. He claims, however, that some threats were made by citizens and neighbors (whom he does not name) to send him to Richmond. Says he never did anything in aid of the Confederate government or army. (Page 3, claimant's brief.) That he was conscripted, but did not go into the confederate service. (Page 2, claimant's brief.) It will be noticed that he makes no explanation of his important matter. How did he escape service after he was conscripted? According to the testimony he left the confederate lines on October 18, 1864, and went to Beverly, W. Va., and thence to Clarksburg, in the same state. He claims to have left because of his opposition to the cause, and that he did not return until after the war closed in 1865. That while at Martinsburg he worked at his trade and was in the employment of the United States government. He furnishes no particulars. This portion of his testimony is not corroborated by any other witness, and rests entirely upon the statements of the claimant.
The claimant was a member of the Virginia militia at the time the war broke out, and claims that he was forced to take an oath as a citizen of Virginia or be sent to Richmond, but does not recollect the purport of the oath. It may be here remarked that there can be little question but that the oath taken was an oath of allegiance to the confederate government. He claims that he was called out as a member of the militia, and remained a few days only at Lexington, Va., and then returned to his home. (Page 2, claimant's brief.) He fails to state what he and his comrades in arms were doing at Lexington, Va., during this time in which the militia was called into service, and it is submitted that this service of the claimant weighs somewhat against his loyalty. As to whether it is sufficient to defeat jurisdiction, is for the court to say.
The supporting testimony is not particularly strong or impressive. Witness Sidney D. Campbell (pp. 4 & 5) states that he has known the claimant since 1845, but did not know him during the war, and never met him during the war, and claims to have met him in 1868, and had a conersation with im in reference to the war, and that he subsequently learned from the clamant that he was a member of the "U. H. of K. of A." society (whatever that may mean), and had taken the first degree in the society. This witness claims that membership in this society was conferred on none but loyal men. It may be remarked that the testimony of the preceding witness sheds no light upon the subject of the claimant's loyalty during the war, inasmuch as the witness admits that he did not see him during the war or until after the war was over. The next witness is in the same predicament. Anderson Hutchins (pp. 5 & 6) claimant's brief, for he states that he did not know him during the war, but believes that he was a loyal man during the war because he has cooperated with the Union party since the war. The testimony of William H. Kelly (p. 6, claimant's brief) is to the effect that he resided half a mile from the claimant during the war and met him often, and that claimant expressed himself in favor of the Union all the time during the war. That he cannot give anything that the claimant did in favor of the Union, except to keep out of the confederate army. He states that his public reputation was that of a Union man. This witness claims to have been loyal. He does not know of claimant's being arrested, injured or threatened on account of his loyalty; does not know how he voted.
The claimant, in his testimony under the rules, states that when he was conscripted he went through the Union lines to Clarksburg. This seems to have been, according to his first testimony, on Oct. 14, 1864. His status betwen 1861 and 1864 does not seem to be clearly or satisfactorily covered by the testimony, which is scant and weak. And as stated before whether or not the imputation of disloyalty which arises in the case, by reason of the claimant's having taken the oath to support the confederacy and served for a time with the militia at Lexington, is outweighed by the testimony favorable to the claimant's loyalty, is left for the consideration and determination of the court.
Respectfully submitted: Franklin W. CollinsSpecialAssistant Attorney.
Testimony: Reply to Defendant's Brief on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
KILBOURN H. ROWSEY, VS. THE UNITED STATES. No. 8608 Congressional.
REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
Defendant's counsel delas very fairly with the testimony in support of this case, with the exception of his statement that the "status of the claimant between 1861 and 1864 does not seen: to be clearly or satisfactorily covered by the testimony, which is scant and weak." This position is controverted. The testimony of the claimant shows that from the commencement to the close of the war his sympathies were constantly with the Union cause; that he never did anything in aid of the rebellion. He further states that threats were made by citizens and neighbors to send him to Richmond, to Castle Thunder. This shows very clearly that he was considered a Union man by his disloyal neighbors. He furthermore states that he never gave any aid or comfort to the rebellion. His not voting for the ratification of the Ordinance of Secession is strong evidence of loyalty.
Mr. William H. Kelly, who was intimate with the claimant during the war, and lived a near neighbor to him, only half a mile distant, says that the claimant expressed himself in favor of the Union all the time throughout the war, and his public reputation was that of a Union man. This witness was also a Union man and loyal to the United States. Says that claimant at the outset exerted his influence against secession and in favor of the Union, so there is some proof and very convincing proof that the claimant was loyal from the commencement all the way through.
The defence relies mainly, however, on the testimony showing that the claimant took some kind of an oath about the commencement of the war, but it is evident that he was forced to take this oath as a citizen of the State of Virginia. The militia it seems were called out and required to take the oath or be sent to Richmond. For all that appears in proof this may have been, and in all probability was, the "Non-combatants" oath, that is that he as one of the militia would not take up arms against the Confederacy. Claimant states that he never took an oath to support the Confederacy, (page 7, original brief). So it appears that defendant's counsel is mistaken in asserting that claimant took an oath to support the Confederacy. There is nothing in the testimony that justifies such a conclusion.
Respectfully Submitted, Gilbert Moyers Attorney for Claimant.
Testimony: Claimant's Request for Findings of Fact
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term 1902-1903.
KILBOURN H. ROWSEY, vs. THE UNITED STATES. No. 8608 Congressional.
CLAIMANT'S REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS OF FACT.
The Claimant considering the facts hereinafter set forth to be proven and deeming them material to the due presentation of this case in the findings of fact, requests the Court to find the same as follows, to-wit:-
I. The Claimant, Kilbourn H. Rowsey, resided during the late war for the suppression of the Rebellion in the County of Augusta, State of Virginia, and remained throughout said war loyal to the Government of the United States. See:- Loyalty finding, filed May 25, 1903.
II. During said war, there were taken from the Claimant by the United States Military forces, acting under proper authority, and converted to the use of the United States Army, Quartermaster supplies of the kinds and values, below stated, as follows, to-wit:-
2 Complete Sets Blacksmith steel tools, good, $200.00.
1 Complete Set of Blacksmith steel tools, old, 40.00.
1 Lot of 100 horseshoes and 1000 nails, 20.00.
1 Lot of Drawing Knives, Saws and Chisels, 4.50.
2 Screw Plates, 20.00.
200 lbs of Steel at 25 cents per lb, 50.00.
300 lbs. Wrought Iron at 5 cents per lb, 15.00.
1 Saddle and 2 Bridles, 15.00.
Total, $364.50.
See:-Testimony of Kilbourn H. Rowsey, P. 2, Abstract; Amanda F. Rowsey, Pg. 2 Abstract; Kilbourn H. Rowsey, Ps. 3 tp 5, Abstract; Amanda F. Rowsey, P. 6, Abstracts; GENERAL REMARKS, Ps. 6 to 7.
III. No payment appears to have been made for said property or any part thereof.
Respectfully submitted, Moyers & Consaul Attorneys for Claimant.
Testimony: Claimant's Brief on Merits
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term 1902-1903.
KILBOURN H. ROWSEY. vs. THE UNITED STATES. No. 8608 Congressional.
STATEMENT.
This claim in the sum of $471.00 for blacksmith tools, steel, iron, etc., arose in the County of Augusta, State of Virginia. It was presented to the Commissioners of Claims and was by them rejected. It was referred to this Honorable Court under the provisions of the Bowman Act by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on May 26, 1892. On May 25, 1903, loyalty was found and the case is now before the Court upon the issue of merits.
CLAIMANT'S BRIEF ON MERITS.
This claim is for the following property alleged to have been taken by the Federal troops under command of General Hunter about June 10, 1864:-
2 Complete Sets Blacksmith steel tools, $200.00.
1 Complete Set of Blacksmith steel tools, old, 40.00.
1 Lot of 100 horseshoes and 1000 nails, 20.00.
1 Lot of Drawing Knives, saws and chisels, 4.50.
2 Screw Plates, 20.00.
200 lbs of Steel at 25 cents per lb, 50.00.
300 lbs. Wrought Iron at 5 cents per lb, 15.00.
1 Saddle and 2 Bridles, 15.00.
Total, $364.50.
The following testimony was taken at Staunton, Virginia, on May 23, 1874, while the claim was pending before the Commissioners of Claims:-
KILB0URN H. ROWSEY, JR., testified: Claimant. Age: 43 years. Residence: Moffett's Creek, Augusta County, Virginia. Occupation: Blacksmith (P. 1). Resided part of the time during the in Rockbridge County, Virginia; also in Clarksburg and Martinsburg, West Virginia, and also in Augusta County, Virginia. (P. 2). Left Confederate lines October, 1864, and went to Beverly, West Virginia; thence to Clarksburg, West Virginia, thence to Martinsburg. Worked at my trade there in employ of the United States Government. (P. 4). I was not present when my property was taken. I saw the army when at my house. My shop was on the road leading from Staunton to Lexington. It was General Hunter's army. I think it was June 11, 1864, at about 9:00 A.M. I did not see anything taken. The only one present who saw them taking the property was my wife, Amanda F. Rowsey. (P. 6).
AMANDA F. ROWSEY testified: Age: 43 years. Residence: Moffett's Creek, Virginia. Wife of Claimant. Was present when property charged for in claim was taken. I saw the articles taken by the army. My husband had locked the door of his shop and when the army stopped here the (P. 8) soldiers broke down the doors and took the tools from the shop and put them into their wagons. It was in June, 1864; do not recollect the day. Did not hear the name of the General. It was a very large farm. A number of soldiers were engaged in carrying the tools out of the shop to the wagons. Suppose they were about one-half hour in removing the tools. Saw a number of officers present but heard no names. Heard nothing said and had no conversation with any one of them. The army was marching toward Lexington and came from Staunton. No battle in the neighborhood that I recollect. I made no complaint and asked for no receipt. No one was present except my children. The tools were taken about 10:00 A.M., openly, as though the property belonged to them. There was no camp here; the army merely halted a short time. The tools were all in good condition and so was the saddle and so were the bridles. (P. 9).
The following testimony was taken at Greenville, Augusta County, Virginia, September 15, 1903:-
KILBOURN H. ROWSEY testified: Age: 71 years. Occupation: Blacksmith. Residence: Greenville Virginia. Am the Claimant. I lived at Cedar Grove, Rockbridge County, Virginia, during the late Civil war. Was engaged in blacksmithing when the Federal troops came. I kept two hands. It was the only blacksmith shop in the place. I had two sets of tools in my shop, which I bought in Baltimore about 1858. Had two sets of everything; bellows, anvils, vises, screw plates, sledges, punches, hammers, tongs, (P. 2) in fact, everything for use in a regular blacksmith shop.
There was about 300 pounds of hammered iron in the shop at the time. Also about 200 pounds of steel.
There was a lot of about 1000 horseshoe nails and fully 100 horseshoes. My rack held that many and I think it was full. Do not remember anything else in the shop except a pair of heavy steelyards.
Besides the above, I had a saddle and two bridles at the house, hanging out on the porch.
The blacksmith tools I paid $200.00 and believe them to have been worth that when the army came.
The 200 pounds of steel cost and was worth 25 cents per pound, or $50.00 in all.
The iron was worth 5 cents per pound, or $15.00. (P. 3). The saddle cost me $20.00 and was worth at the time about $15.00. I had it about two years and had used it but little. The bridles were nearly new and worth about $5.00 together.
I had three sets of blacksmith tools, but one was an old set, not worth to exceed $40.00.
I had a set of drawing knives, saws and chisels, worth $4.50 all told.
The Federal army came to Cedar Grove June 10, 1864. General Hunter was in command and said to have about 25,000 soldiers. They had a battle there on the evening of June 9, 1864. I was right between the two fires. McCauslin's troops engaged Hunter's. The Confederates left that evening (P. 4) and the Federal army left next day. I did not see my property taken. I was hunting for Dr. Killory and L. M. Humphries, who had run away from the fight and had not returned. They had been out all night and their wives wanted me to look them up. That is why I was not present when my property was taken. I went away about sunrise and came back about 7:00 A.M. The Federal troops had not gotten to my shop when I went away. I locked it when I left. When I returned, I found nothing there. The blacksmith tools above mentioned, were all gone, also the iron and steel and saddle and bridles. (P. 5). The Confederates did not take any of the property. I know this because I was right there when McCauslin went away. Nobody but my wife saw the property taken, except the Federal soldiers themselves. (P. 6).
AMANDA F. ROWSEY testified: Age: 71 years. Occupation: Housekeeper Wife of Claimant. Was living with my husband, the Claimant, in Cedar Grove, Virginia. The house was about 50 yards from the blacksmith shop. I was present, when the Battle took place between the Union troops and Confederates,-on our porch. The next day after the battle, our property was taken. I saw it taken. Think it was in the afternoon. My husband was on the river, taking something to eat for two who ran away when the Battle came on. He also wanted to get them to come home. They were close neighbors of ours. I saw the property taken by the Yankees. They took it all from the shop. They took a saddle and bridle; it seems to me they took two bridles. The soldiers that came to the house had on blue clothes; also those who took the property from the shop. No Confederates came to the house. (P. 8).
GENERALREMARKS.
In view of the fact that all of this property charged for was taken at one time and amounts all told to only $364.50, we do not deem it necessary to incorporate in this brief, an itemized summary.
Mrs. Rowsey, Claimant's wife, has testified positively to actually seeing the property taken by the Federal troops. Mr. Rowsey knew that the property was there an hour or two prior to the arrival of the Federal troops and was painfully aware of the fact that it was gone after the Federal troops had left. It is shown that no one else was present when this property was taken, save Mrs. Rowsey. In view of this fact, we submit that the evidence adduced in this case, should in reason be considered as sufficient to warrant an allowance as prayed. It is obvious that the prices charged are very reasonable and there is absolutely nothing in the record to cast the least suspicion upon the good faith of the Claimant. It will be borne in mind that he presented this claim as soon as possible to the Southern Claims Commission and has always exercised all possible diligence in continuing the prosecution of his claim.
We think that your Honors will agree with us that an allowance should be made in this case as follows, to-wit:-
2 Complete Sets Blacksmith steel tools, good, $200.00.
1 Complete Set of Blacksmith steel tools, old, 40.00.
1 Lot of 100 horseshoes and 1000 nails, 20.00.
1 Lot of Drawing Knives, Saws and Chisels, 4.50.
2 Screw Plates, 20.00.
200 lbs of Steel at 25 cents per lb, 50.00.
300 lbs. Wrought Iron at 5 cents per lb, 15.00.
1 Saddle and 2 Bridles, 15.00.
Total, $364.50.
Respectfully submitted, Moyers & Consaul Attorneys for Claimant.
Testimony: Defendant's Brief on Merits
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES. DECEMBER TERM, 1902-1903.
Kilbourn H. Rowsey v. THE UNITED STATES. No. 8,608, Cong.
DEFENDANT'S BRIEF ON MERITS.
The claimant herein asks the court for a finding in his behalf to the effect that certain property was taken and appropriated by the Federal troops, under the command of Gen. Hunter, about June 10, 1864, said property belonging to the claimant, and taken from his blacksmith shop and house at Cedar Grove, Rockbridge County, Virginia, said property consisting of the following items:
2 Complete Sets Blacksmith steel tools, $200.00.
1 Complete Set of Blacksmith steel tools, old, 40.00.
1 Lot of 100 horseshoes and 1000 nails, 20.00.
1 Lot of Drawing Knives, saws and chisels, 4.50.
2 Screw Plates, 20.00.
200 lbs of Steel at 25 cents per lb, 50.00.
300 lbs. Wrought Iron at 5 cents per lb, 15.00.
1 Saddle and 2 Bridles, 15.00.
Total, $864.50.
The proofs presented in support of the above claim are quite meagre in quantity, they being confined to the testimony of the claimant and his wife. They are correctly abstracted in claimant's brief.
The claimant himself was absent from home at the time of the actual taking of the property, and the proof as to the taking are confined to the testimony of his wife, Amanda F. Rowsey. As corroborative of her statement, however, that the Federal troops did take the property in question (which she claims to have seen), the claimant himself states that the Confederates had been there before the Federals came, but did not take any of the property; that he was there when the Confederate General went away; that a battle had been fought near his place between the Union forces and the Confederates (see pp. 4 and 5, claimant's brief), on the evening of June 9, 1864, and that McCauslin's troops engaged Hunter's; that the Confederates left that evening (p. 4, testimony), and that the Federal Army left the next day. That he (claimant) was out hunting for two neighbors who had run away from the fight and had not returned; that their wives wanted him to look them up; that that is the reason he was not present when his property was taken; that he went away about sunrise, and came back about seven a.m., and that the Federal troops had not gotten to his shop when he went away; that he looked it up when he left, and when he returned he found nothing there.
The testimony of Amanda P. Rowsey, which is abstracted on pages five and six of claimant's "brief, shows her presence there when the property was taken, although her testimony is somewhat deficient in detail. She does not enter into a description of the property which she saw taken, but corroborates her husband with regard to the facts relating to his absence.
It may be remarked, for the information of the court, that the reason the testimony of this witness was not brought out in greater detail was due to the fact that at the time her testimony was taken she was in very feeble health, and probably undergoing her last illness. It was with great difficulty that her testimony could be taken at all.
The claimant testifies, however, as to the items of property which he had in his shop, such testimony being that abstracted on pages three to five of claimant's brief. The property in question had probably deteriorated somewhat by reason of age and use, and, it may be, the values given by the claimant should be scaled somewhat.
Respectfully submitted. F.W. Collins Special Attorney.
Bibliographic Information : Southern Claims Commission: Claim of Kilburn H. Rowsey, May 23, 1874, Claim No. 7650, Source copy consulted: National Archives, Washington, D.C., RG 123, Congressional Jurisdiction #8608.
