Summary: Sansebaugh's claim for two horses was disallowed by the Commissioners in 1872 because his name was listed on Augusta County poll books as having voted for the Ordinance of Secession. Sansebaugh appealed this decision to the Congressional Court of Claims in 1896 and again in 1898.
Items Claimed:
| Item Claimed: | Amount Claimed: | Amount Allowed: | Amount Disallowed: |
| One Bay Mare 8 years old | 150.00 | 0 | 150.00 |
| One Bay Mare 13 years old | 100.00 | 0 | 100.00 |
| Total | $250.00 | 0 | $250.00 |
Claims Summary:
If ordinary faith & credit could be put in the proofs in this case great doubt would remain of the justness of the claim. But the claimant swears he did not vote for or against the ordinance of secession. The record shows he did vote for the ordinance an act inexcusable unless done under duress or from a reasonable fear of personal injury to himself or family. The claim is rejected.
Testimony: David Sansabaugh
Before the Commissioners of Claims Under the Act of Congress March 3d 1871. David Sansabaugh vs. The United States
On this 14th day of September 1871, at Staunton, Augusta County and State of Virginia, personally came David Sansabaugh claimant, and John R. Buchanan and Thomas Gregory, his witnesses, in a cause now pending before the Commissioners of Claims, in the name of David Sansabaugh, vs. The United States, before me a U.S. Comm'r. and also a Special Comm'r. appointed by the Comm'rs. of Claims.
Present David Sansabaugh, 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 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.
WG Riley US Commissioner and Special Comm'r.
Deposition of David Sansabaugh
Ques. 1st. Answer. Witness Says-I am 44 years old I reside in Augusta Co, Va. I am a farmer by occupation. I resided at the same place all the time prior to April 1st 1861, and remained there during the war, until in 1864. I went through the lines to the North, where I remained until about the 1st June, 1865.
3. Witness Says-I did not pass beyond the Military or Naval lines of the U. S. and enter the rebel lines.
4th. Witness Says-I never took any oath to the Confederate States.
5th. Witness Say I took an Amnesty Oath at Staunton, Va. in 1865. I never asked for a pardon.
6th. Witness Says-I never was connected in any form with the civil service of the Confederate States.
7th. Witness Says-I never held any office or place of trust or honor or profit in the so called Confederate States. I never held any clerkship, or agency or employment of any kind for the Confederacy.
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 soldier, sailor or Marine. I never furnished a Substitute, and I never was employed in any department or bureau of the Confederate Government. I never had charge of any stores, teams, Wagons, trains or any thing for the Confederacy.
11 Witness Says I never was in the employment of the Confederate Government. I never give any aid or information to the Confederacy
12 Witness Says-I never was engaged in the manufacture of any goods or stores, or equipments of any kind whatsoever.
13. Witness Says-I never was in the employment of the Confederacy for any purpose or business at all.
14 Witness Says-I never was engaged in blockade running or traffick between the lines, or interested in any contract or goods brought in to or exported from any port of the Confederacy.
15 Witness Says-I left the Confederate States in 1864, and went to Clarksburg W. Va. and was employed by Capt William Cooney, and Cook in the United States Army, and returned to my home in Augusta Co. in 1865, after the close of the War.
16 Witness Says I nad no interest in any boat or vessel running in any of the Waters of the Confederacy.
17 Witness Says-I was arrested four times by the Confederates. I took no oath to get my release, but each time run away. I never was arrested by the United States.
18 Witness Says-I had some grain and hay taken, and also Bacon. I received no pay.
19 Witness Says-My Wife was threatened with imprisonment for feeding deserters. This was when I was in the Union Army. I never was otherwise molested or injured.
21 Witness Says-I never contributed anything to the United States.
22 Witness Says-I never done anything except my own service in the Union Army, and my wife fed and sheltered me who were keeping out of the Confederate Army.
23 Witness Says-I had a brother in the Confederate Army for awhile and then he went North. I had no relatives in the Union Army.
24 Witness Says-I never owned a Confederate Bond or did anything to support the credit of the Confederacy.
25 Witness Says-I never give aid or comfort to the rebellion.
26 Witness Says-I never was engaged in making raids into the United States from Canada, or in the destruction of its commerce.
27 Witness Says-I never was engaged in holding in custody any persons taken as prisoners of War by the Confederates.
28 Witness Says-I never belonged to any Society for the persecution of any persons because 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 its schools.
31 Witness Says-I never received a pass from the Confederate Government.
32 Witness Says-I was under no disabilities, and have held no Office since the War.
33 Witness Says-At the beginning of the War, my sympathies were with the Union. I did not vote for or against the Ordinance of Secession. I adhered to the Union all the time.
34 Witness Says I declare that from the beginning of hostilities against the United State to the end thereof my sympathies were constantly in favor of the Union. I was at all times ready and willing to aid the Union Cause, so as was in my power and the circumstances permitted
General Interrogatory
Ques. Do you know of any other matter relative to this Claim? If so state it fully.
Answer-I know of nothing else. Further this deponent saith not.
David Sansabaugh
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14th day of September 1871 WG Riley US Commissioner and Special Commr.
Testimony: Thomas Gregory
Deposition of Thomas Gregory to prove the taking of the property.
Ques 1st. Answered Witness Say-I am 27 years old. I reside in Augusta Co, Va. by trade a Book & Shoemaker. I was present and the saw the property named in the claimants petition.
4 Witness Says-The property was taken from the Claimants farm, in June 1864, by Soldiers belonging to Genl. Hunter's Army There was no present except my wife.
7 Witness Says-The horse were caught in the field and led off
9 Witness Says-The horses were removed in the direction of Lynchburg.
10 Witness Says I did not see the property after it was taken fromm the farm
11 Witness Says-There was no complaint made that I know of. I do not of any receipt being asked for.
13 Witness Says-The property was taken about 12 or 1 Oclock in the day time publicly
14 Witness says-The Army was marching at the time of taking. There was no battle or skirmish near there at any time. I did not know any Quarter Master.
15 Witness Says-The horses were in very good condition. One bay Mare was I suppose 7 or 8 years old She was worth $150. The other a bay Mare about 10 or 12 years old and worth $100. They were both good animals.
19th. Witness Says-I did not see the property in the use of the Army
20 Witness Says-I suppose the Army needed the horses.
21 Witness Says I suppose they had orders to take property.
22 Witness Says-I think there was a necessity, from the condition of the Army horses, and I think that the property being takeng and used, that the Government should pay for it.
23 Witness Says-I would suppose that the soldiers had orders to to take the property, needed and such orders had been given.
General Interrogatory.
Question-Do you know of other matter relative to this claim? If so state the same fully.
Answer-I know of nothing else. Further this deponent saith not.
Thomas A. Gregory
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14th day of September 1871 WG Riley US Commissioner and Special Commr.
Testimony: John R. Buchanan
Deposition of John R. Buchanan to prove the loyalty of claimant
Ques 1st. Answer-Witness Says I am 28 years old, I reside in Augusta Co. Va. by occupation a farmer.
I have known the claimant all my life. I live near him. I saw him frequently during the War. I have no doubt from his acts and language of his loyalty to the United States. And all his neighbors believed him. He never done anything for the rebellion. He was in the service of the Union Army in W. Va. He could not have remained in the Confederacy had it been successful
General Interrogatory
Question-Do you know other relative to this claim? If so state it fully.
Answer-I know that he was badly treated for his Union sentiments. And that his wife in his absence was very badly treated in various ways.
Further this deponent saith not.
John R. Buchanan his mark
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14th day of September 1871 WG Riley US Commissioner And Special Commr. for State of Va.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Eleven (11) 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.
WG Riley Special Commissioner
Testimony: William H. Cooney
Clarksburg Harison Co. West Va May the 10 1865
this is to certify that David Sensebaugh is a good & younion man and he was run from his home by the Rebbels which is in Augusty County Va also he worked in me train holing for the goverment for some considerbel time
Wm H Coone Wagon Master
Hon. Commr. Claims-David Sansabaugh requests me to forward the above certificates as additional evidence of his loyalty. I would respectfully suggest that he is entirely worthy.
H. Risk Spe. Commr.
Testimony: Claimant's Brief on Loyalty
COURT OF CLAIMS. DECEMBER TERM 1894-95.
David Sensibaugh, vs. The United States No. 8610 Cong.
STATEMENT.
The claimant in this case resided in Augusta Co., Va., during the war.
The Commissioners of Claims rejected his claim, and in their report to Congress state:--
"If ordinary faith & credit could be put in the proofs in this case great doubt would remain of the justness of the claim. But the claimant swears he did not vote for or against the ordinance of secession. The record shows he did vote for the ordinance an act inexcusable unless done under duress or from a reasonable fear of personal injury to himself or family. The claim is rejected."
The claim is transmitted to the Court by the Committee on War Claims, Feb. 26th, 1892.
BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
While the claim was pending before the Commissioners the following testimony was taken in Sept. '71.
CLAIMANT testifies: Age 44; residence Augusta Co., Va., Farmer. Resided at the same place all the time prior to April 1st, '61, and remained there during the war, until '64, I went through the lines to the North, where I remained until about the 1st of June '65. I did not pass beyond the military or naval lines of the U.S. and enter the rebel lines. Never took any oath to the Confederate states. Took the amnesty oath to the Confederate states. Took the amnesty oath at Staunton, Va. in '65. Never asked for a pardon. Never connected in any way with the civil service of the Confederacy. (P. 2). Never held any office under the Confederacy. Never an officer, sailor or soldier. Never furnished a substitute. Never in the employment of the Confederate Govt. Never gave any aid or information to the Confederacy. Never engaged in the manufacture of any oggds or stores. Never in the employment of the Confederacy. (P. 3). Never engaged in Blockade running. I left the Confederate states in '64 and went to Clarksburg, W. Va., and was employed by Capt. Wm. Cooney, as cook in the U.S. Army, and returned to my home in Augusta Co., in '65, after the close of the war. Had no interest in any boat or vessel running in any of the waters of the Confederacy. I was arrested four times by the Confederates. I took no oath to get my release. but each time run away. I never was arrested by the U.S. I had some grain and hay taken, also bacon. Received no pay. My wife was threatened with imprisonment for feeding deserters. (P. 4). This was when I was in the Union army. I never was otherwise molested or injured. I never contributed anything to the U.S. I never done anything, except my own service in the Union army, and my wife sheltered and fed men who were keeping out of the Confederate army. I had a brother in the Confederate army for awhile and then he went North. I had no relatives in the Union army. I never owned a Confederate bond, or did anything to support the credit of the Confederacy.. I never give aid or comfort to the rebellion. I never was enaged in making raids into the U.S. from canada, Never engaged in holding in custody any person taken as prisoner of war by the Confederates. (P. 5). I never belonged to any society for the persecution of any person because of their loyalty to the U.S. I never was a paroled prisoner of the U.S. Never held any office in the U.S., Never received a pass from the Confederate Govt. Under no disabilities, and have held no office since the war. At the beginning of the war my sympathies were with the Union. I did not vote for or against the ordinance of secession. I adhered to the Union all the time. Declare from the beginning of hostilities against the U.S. to the end my sympathies were constantly in favor of the Union. I was at all times ready and willing to aid the Union cause so. (P. 6).
JOHN R. BUCHANAN testifies: Age 28; residence Augusta Co., Va., farmer. I have known the claimant all my life. Lived near him. Saw frequently during the war. I leave no doubt from his acts and language of his loyalty to the U.S. and all his neighbors so believed him. He never done anything for the rebellion. He was in the service of the U.S. Army in W. Va. He could not have remained in the Confederacy, had it been successful. I know claimant was badly treated for his Union sentiments, and that his wife in his absence was very badly treated in various ways. (P. 10).
The following testimony has been taken since the reference of the claim to the Court, in Nov. 1895.
T.A. GREGORY testifies: shoemaker; age 67; residence Moffatt's Creek, Va., Not related or interested. (P. 1). I have been acquainted with the claimant about 38 years. Knew him during the war. We refugeed together during the war. I saw the claimant often, and had conversations with him, and he expressed himself as opposed to the war. I lived a portion of the time on his farm, and a portion of the time within two or three miles of him. His reputation in the neighborhood was good as to Union sentiments. I think all the neighbors knew him to be a Union man. I had a good many conversations with him during the war, and he always expressed himself as in favor of the Union to me. Claimant refused to go into the army of the South, and refugeed and left his home to keep from going into the Southern army. Claimant was arrested by the Confederates, and shot at while trying to make his escape. (P. 2). I was with him when he was shot at. He frequently concealed Union man and extended aid to those trying to escape from the Confederate lines. Claimant never did anything that I know of to aid the Confederate Govt. Witness' attention is called to the fact that the records show that David Sensibaugh voted for secession, and states There was another man named David Sensibaugh living in the neighborhood. He had sons in the Confederate army, and I think he voted for secession. I think the claimant was a Union man throughout, from the commencement of the war to the winding up. He could not have established his loyalty to the Confederacy, had it succeeded.
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
I think almost all of his neighbors accused claimant for being a Union man, and I think it was right. I heard Mr. Geo. Clemer say he was a Union man. I heard Mr. James Buchanan say he was a Union man, (P. 3). During the war. In speaking of Mr. Sensibaugh during the war, as to his transactions, etc., in not going into the war, and sometimes I met with those at different places. One of the places was at my own home. I was a shoemaker by trade, and talked to a great many persons at that time. I frequently met men on the road, and they would speak of him as a Union man. I could not recall the times I met Clemer and the other men, nor what was said at those times. I can swear that during conversations with Clemer, Buchanan, and others the claimant's name was mentioned particularly. I was well acquainted with the claimant, and have been a good many years. (P. 4). He left his home in '64. I hwas with him, Mr. Buchanan, Wm. Jackson, and several others were along. Names them. I think it was about the 1st of Nov. Can't remember the day exactly. The last of Oct. or the 1st of Nov. We went to Beverly, the first place, then to Buchanan, and took the oath there at Buchanan. Then they went to Clarksburg, but I only went a part of the war. That is all I knew of Mr. Sensibaugh the balance of the war. I have not a claim against the Govt. I lived about six miles from the claimant, I suppose. Then in '62-63 I moved to about three miles from him. Then in '64, I lived within call of his house, living on his farm. We did not vote at the same precinct in '61. He was conscripted, but I don't think he was in the army more than 10 days. (P. 5). He was in the army the last of the war. I have most forgot. He had a brother in the army awhile, but not a father. I don't know that he had any uncles in this Country. I suppose claimant deserted. He deserted when he got ready. Claimant's voting precinct in '61 was Newport, Augusta Co. Suppose the claimant kept out of the army till '64, by hiding himself out in the woods. I knew very little about his movements till '64, except that I knew him as a Union man. He came to my shoe shop or house before I moved to his farm, and we frequently had conversations about the war. I think he never said how he voted. Claimant has been in this room this morning while I am being cross-examined. Claimant came about 18 miles to be present at this hearing. (P. 6). I don't remember that he ever told me he wanted to see the south beaten during the war. He wasn't detailed to work for the Confederates in their shop. I don't remember about any other David Sensibaugh voting at Newport in '61. Claimant has no middle initial. I couldn't say if there was any other David Sensibaugh's in the neighborhood who did not have any middle initials. (P. 7).
JOHN R. BUCHANAN testifies: Farmer; age 52; residence Moffatt's Creek, Va. Not interested or related. (P. 8). I have known the claimant all my life. He expressed himself against the war. I saw him often, lived about a half mile from him. I was a Union man. He was regarded by every body in that neighborhood as a Union man. He never made any secret of his Union sentiments. He was threatened and shot at by the Confederates several times; don't know about his being arrested. He went through the lines to avoid fighting against the Union. I don't think he voted at all. (P. 9). There was another man named Davis Sensibaugh older than claimant living in that community at that time. Suppose that man was a Confederate. His voting place was Newport. He concealed and fed men trying to escape from the Confederate lines, and Union men were arrested by the Confederates at his house. He did not do anything to aid the Confederate side. He was conscripted and remained eight or ten days, and deserted at the first opportunity. He was forced into that service, and taken from his home. I don't think claimant could have established his loyalty to the Confederacy, had it succeeded.
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
I lived within a half mile from claimant in '61, and all of the war. I was a farmer. (P. 10). I lived with my father, he owned a farm. I don't know that the other Mr. Sansibaugh had any middle name. He was a distant relation to claimant. I am not positive about the other Mr. Sansibaugh voting at Newport. He lived right there, and I don't know where else he ould have voted. Claimant lived 2-1/2 miles from Newport in '61, that is the walking way, and about three miles around by the road. He lived about seven miles from Middlebrook. The other David Sansibaugh lived about three miles from Newport, in the other direction from the claimant., and I expect 10 miles from Middlebrook. The other Davis Sensibaugh is dead. Died about three years ago. Names the Union men the claimant concealed from the Confederates. This was about '64 I guess. This was not long before they went to W. Va. (P. 11). We were all straight Union men.. Claimant deserted around. He flanked the recruiting officers. I have just heard you ask the claimant's attorney to put claimant on the stand, and heard him decline, and I have also heard you ask the claimant to allow you to cross-examine him, and he declined. I never heard claimant says he voted for secession. Claimant was threatened and shot at when he had the other deserters at his house. Some of the deserters were friends of his, and some were from a distance.
RE-DIRECT-EXAMINATION.
I have heard the attorney for claimant state that he didn't put claimant on the stand, because his deposition was already on file. (P. 12).
SUMMARY.
The Commissioners of Claims doubted the justness of the claim The only allegation of disloyalty they make in their report is that the claimant voted for the ordinance of secession. This was a mistake.
The claimant says at the beginning of the war his sympathies were with the Union. That he did not vote for or against the ordinance of secession, that he adhered to the Union all the time.
The testimony taken since the reference of the claim to the Court shows that there was another man by the same name living in Middlebrook, who had sons in the Confederate army. This was doubtless the man who voted for the ordinance of secession.
The affirmative facts of loyalty in this case are very convincing.
The claimant was 34 years old in '61. Farming in Augusta Co., Va., In '64 he went through the lines to the North where he remained until June '65. While inside the Union lines he was engaged for sometime in working for the U.S. He was not connected with the Confederate service. He fed deserters from the rebel army and aided them in getting through the lines. He also aided Union men. His expressions throughout the war were at all times in favor of the Union cause and as desiring its success. His reputation was that of a consistent Union man. These facts certainly justify a favorable finding on loyalty.
Respectfully Submitted, Gilbert Moyers ATTY FOR C'L'M'T.
Testimony: Defendant's Brief on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term 1896.
David Sensibaugh, vs. The United States. No. 8610, Cong.
DEFENDANT'S BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
The evidence is correctly abstracted in claimant's brief on loyalty.
The poll lists of Augusta County, Va. show that a person of claimant's name voted at Newport (claimant's voting place) for the ordinance of secession. Claimant has attempted to meet this by producing evidence that there was another person of his name whose voting place was Newport and who was a secessionist. The C.S. Archives show that a person of claimant's name enlisted in the confederate army. Claimant has produced evidence tending to show that he was conscripted and deserted. If the court shall consider these explanations sufficient, I see no objection to his being found loyal, otherwise the case should be dismissed.
Saml A Putman Assistant Attorney.
Testimony: Claimant's Reply to Defendant's Brief on Loyalty
COURT OF CLAIMS. DECEMBER TERM 1895-96.
David Sensibaugh, vs. The United States No. 8610 Cong.
REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
Directing the attention of the Court to the first point made by defendant's counsel as to the claimant having voted for the ordinance of secession., it is contended that the proof as to his not having voted for said ordinance is absolutely conclusive.
Claimant himself testifies that at the beginning he was opposed to secession and did not vote for or against the ordinance of secession and that he adhered to the Union all the time.
Mr. Gregory testifies that there was another man named David Sensibaugh who lived in that immediate neighborhood and who had sons in the Confederate army, and witness thinks he voted for secession..
Mr. Buchanan also testifies that there was another man named David Sensibaugh who was older than the claimant and who lived in that community at that time and whose voting place was the same as that of the claimant. That this man, he supposes was a Confederate. Witness is not positive that this other Sensibaugh voted at Newport, but says that he lived right there and he don't know where else he could have voted. This man is dead.
In view of the threats made against claimant on account of his Union sentiments, it is reasonable to believe, aside from the positive testimony on that subject that he did not vote for the ordinance of secession because of fear.
As to the service of the claimant in the Confederate army referred to by defendant's counsel we have the positive testimony of the claimant that he was not in the service.
Other witnesses testify that he was arrested by the Confederates, but made his escape. One of these witnesses says that he was conscripted and remained eight or ten days and deserted. At all events the proof shows very conclusively that the claimant was not a soldier in the Confederate army.
The proof is very strong and conclusive on loyalty in this case. In fact the claimant was actively loyal.
Respectfully Submitted, Gilbert Moyers ATTY FOR C'L'M'T.
Testimony: Claimant's Motion for a New Trial on Loyalty
COURT OF CLAIMS. DECEMBER TERM 1896-97.
David Sensibaugh, vs. The U.S. No. 8610 Cong.
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON LOYALTY.
This case was submitted on loyalty without argument Dec. 17th, 1896. Loyalty not found, case dismissed. Petition filed Sept. 2nd, 1896. Claimant's attorney, Gilbert Moyers, moves this Honorable Court for a new trial on loyalty. There is no room for doubt that the Court erred in not finding the claimant loyal. Defendant's counsel even offers no defense.
The facts are as follows:--Mr. Sensibaugh was 34 years of age in '61. He lived in Augusta Co., Va. He was not in the Conf. service. Did not aid the Confederacy. He left the Confederate states in '64, and was employed as a cook in the U.S. Army. He was repeatedly arrested by the Confederates. His wife was threatened for feeding deserters. He was for the Union in '61. Adhered to it throughout.
His witnesses corroborate his statements. Furthermore testify that he always talked as a Union man. Reputation that of a Union man.
Upon oral argument of this case I think it can be demonstrated conclusively that the Court is in error, and loyalty will certainly be found.
Respectfully Submitted, Gilbert Moyers Atty.
Testimony: Defendant's Brief on Claimant's Motion for a New Trial on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES. December Term, 1897.
DAVID SENSIBAUGH vs. THE UNITED STATES. No. 8610, Cong.
Defendant's Brief on Claimant's Motion for a New Trial on Loyalty.
This case was submitted on loyalty Dec. 17, 1896, and the court found caaimantnot loyal.
On Aug. 28, 1897, claimant's attorney filed motion for a new trial on loyalty, alleging that the court erred in not finding claimant loyal.
No new evidence has been submitted, claimant's attorney evidently relying on the evidence on which claimant has once been found disloyal.
The testimony shows that claimant lived in Augusta County, Virginia, during the war (p. 1, claimant's brf.), and that his voting place in 1861 was Newport, Augusta County, Virginia (p. 6, clmt's brf.).
The evidence in the case does not warrant any other conclusion than that arrived at by the court when it found claimant not loyal.
The poll lists of Augusta County, Virginia, show that a person of claimant's name noted at Newport for the ordinance of secession; and the C. S. Archives show that a person of claimant's name enlisted in the Confederate army from that locality.
Claimant has attempted to meet these evidences of disloyalty by the testimony of two witnesses, T. R. Gregory and John R. Buchanan, to the effect that there was another person of his name whose voting place was Newport, and who was a secessionist; and that claimant was conscripted into the Confederate service and deserted; but their testimony is very unconvincing:
They testify that there was another David Sensibaugh living near Newport, and that they "think" and "suppose" he was a secessionist. They are "are not positive" that he voted at Newport, or that any other David Sensibaugh than claimant voted at Newport in 1861, but suppose he did.
Their entire testimony conveys the impression that they were treading on "uncertain ground" and were not prepared to enter into particulars.
Claimant testifies (p. 2 clmt's brf.) that he had a brother in the Confederate army. Says (p. 3 clmt's brf) that he did not vote against secession.
T. A. GRegory, for claimant, says (p. 4, clmt's brf) that claimant "expressed himself as opposed to the war." Says (p. 6, clmt's brf) that he doesn't know of claimant ever saying he wanted the South beaten during the war.
Claimant was present at the examination of the witnesses, Gregory and Buchanan, and was requested by the attorney for the Government to testify, but positively refused to do so, (See dep, of John R. Buchanan, p. l ).
The record is quite brief, and does not warrant a finding of loyalty.
The court did not err in finding claimant not loyal; and in the absence of additional evidence of claimant's loyalty, the motion for a new trial should be dismissed.
Respectfully submitted, Chas. F. Kincheloe, Assistant Attorney.
Testimony: Claimant's Reply to Defendant's Brief
COURT OF CLAIMS, DECEMBER TERM 1898-99.
DAVID SENSIBAUGH vs. THE UNITED STATES No. 8610 Cong.
Reply to Defendant's brief on Claimant's motion for a new trial for loyalty.
It is true that when the Government's brief on this motion was filed, there was no new evidence. No evidence had been filed, and noon suggestion of new evidence was made by me in support of the motion. Since then, two affidavits have been filed, showing that very strong additional proof of claimant's loyalty may be made, if opportunity be given. One of the persons from whom these affidavits have been taken is a brother of the Claimant. He deposes squarelly and strongly to the effect, that claimant was a consistent union man throughout the war. The other person deposes that he lived with claimant during the war and had frequent conversations with him, and that claimant always expressed himself in favor of the Union and opposed to secession. Both say, as claimant and former witnesses say, that claimant left his home during the war and went with him to the Federal Lines.
It will be observed that the claimant testified not merely that he went inside the Federal Lines, but that he was there employed and served as a cook in the Federal Army. All the original witnesses say that he systematicallly helped to keep men out of the Confederate Service. It even appears that Union men were arrested by Confederate Officers at his house. The witness John R. Buchanan, gives the names of four Union men whom claimant concealed, and intimates that there were others whom he could not at the moment recall. From these two affidavits, together with the former proof, it would seem that on another hearing, affirmative loyalty of the claimant will be shown to the entire satisfaction of the Court. The facts tending to impeach his loyalty, put in evidence by the Government, are all sufficiently explained, and this new positive proof of loyalty will abundantly entitle claimant to a finding.
Respectfully submitted, Gilbert Moyers Attorney for Claimant.
Testimony: Defendant's Supplemental Brief on Claimant's Motion
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
David Sensibaugh v. The United States No. 8610, Congressional.
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON CLAIMANT'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON LOYALTY.
We merely wish to call the attention of the court to the fact that claimant's motion for a new trial on loyalty is based solely, as appears from said motion, upon alleged error of fact, and to object to the consideration of the affidavits which have been filed by claimant in support of the motion.
The motion does not allege, as a ground for asking a new trial on loyalty, the discovery of new evidence of loyalty not within the knowledge of the claimant at the time of the former trial, hence these affidavits can not be admitted as evidence on the motion at bar and should be utterly disregarded by the court in its consideration of said motion.
It is true that in defendants' former brief on the motion the following statement occurs: "No new evidence has been submitted, claimant's attorney evidently relying on the evidence on which claimant has once been found disloyal." However, the use of this language was due to an oversight on the part of counsel for defendants as to the ground on which the motion for a new trial was based and consitutes no reason why counsel for claimant should have introduced said affidavits as evidence on a motion based wholly upon alleged error of fact.
It is respectfully submitted that the said affidavits must be disregarded by the court and the motion decided upon the record as it stood at the trial of the case on the question of loyalty.
Chas. F. Kincheloe, Assistant Attorney.
Testimony: Reply to Defendant's Supplemental Brief
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term 1900-1901.
DAVID SENSIBAUGH VS. THE UNITED STATES. No. 8610 Congressional.
REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON CLAIMANT'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON LOYALTY.
The contention of defendants' counsel in his supplemental brief on claimant's motion for a new trial on loyalty that the affidavits taken in support of said motion should not be used, because they are not referred to in claimant's motion for a new trial, is far fetched and not based upon any legal grounds. Affidavits can be used in support of a motion for a new trial even though not filed until the day that the motion is heard and submitted for the consideration of the Court. They can be filed at any time while the motion is pending before it is decided, providing there is an affidavit showing that the evidence set forth in this is newly discovered. This principle is so well settled that I am surprised that a lawyer of the experience of the counsel for the defense in this case should raise any objection to the use of these affidavits for the purpose for which they are filed.
Respectfully submitted, Gilbert Moyers Attorney for Claimant.
Bibliographic Information : Southern Claims Commission: Claim of David Sansabaugh, September 14, 1871, Claim No. 6904, Source copy consulted: National Archives, Washington, D.C., RG 123, Congressional Jurisdiction #8610.
