Summary: The Claims Commission rejected Stover's claim for horses, grain, and commissary supplies because his name appeared on the Augusta County polls as having voted in favor of the ordinance of secession. His son appealed this decision to the Court of Claims in 1889. The case went through several appeals between 1896 and 1901.
Items Claimed:
| Item Claimed: | Amount Claimed: | Amount Allowed: | Amount Disallowed: |
| One Large Sorrel Horse (9 years old) | $175.00 | 0 | 175.00 |
| One Blake riding Horse (6 years old) | 175.00 | 0 | 175.00 |
| One Bay riding Horse (5 years old) | 150.00 | 0 | 150.00 |
| 500 pounds of Bacon at 20 cents | 100.00 | 0 | 100.00 |
| 40 bus Corn at $1 | 40.00 | 0 | 40.00 |
| 50 bus Oats at 50 cents | 25.00 | 0 | 25.00 |
| 50 lbs Sugar | 8.00 | 0 | 8.00 |
| 30 lbs Butter | 2.00 | 0 | 2.00 |
| Total | $680.00 | 0 | $680.00 |
Claims Summary:
The claimant is a farmer about 56 years of age & resided in Augusta Co. Va. Was not molested by the Confederates. They paid him for property they took from him. He states that he did not vote for the Ordinance of Secession. The records show that he did vote for it. We must accept the record as the better evidence. It was a disloyal act committed after the commencement of hostilities and is not explained nor is there any attempt to justify.
The claim is disallowed.
Testimony: Jacob Stover
My name is Jacob Stover, my age 55 years, my residence near Fishersville Augusta Co., in the State of Virginia, and my occupation a farmer; I am the claimant, and have beneficial interest in the claim.
Ques. 2 Ans. I resided where I now do, during the entire war. I had 207 acres, about 172 acres in cultivation and the family in timber. I farmed and did not change my residence.
Ques 3 Ans. I never passed beyond the lines.
Ques 4 Ans. I took no oath.
Ques 5 Ans. I took an amnesty oath, at Staunton, Va. in 1865, after the close of the War.
Ques 6 Ans. I never was connected with the civil service of the Confederate States.
Ques 7 Ans. I never held any office, place of trust or honor or profit under the Confederate Government.
Ques 8 Ans. I held no clerkship, agency or employment of any kind for or under the Confederacy.
Ques 9 Ans. I was never in any capacity in the Military or Naval service of the Confederate States or territory.
Ques 10 Ans. I was no officer or soldier.
Ques 11 Ans. I belonged to no state Militia while subject to the Confederacy.
Ques 12 Ans. I belonged to no home guard, or committee of any kind for any purpose.
Ques. 13 Ans. I was not a conscript.
Ques. 14 Ans. I furnished no substitute.
Ques. 15 Ans. I never was connected with the Quarter Master's department, or any other branch of the Confederate service.
Ques. 16 Ans. I was not employed on any Railroad, nor river in transporting anything whatever.
Ques 17 Ans. I never had charge of anything for the use and benefit of the Confederacy, its army or navy.
Ques. 18 Ans. I was in no business or employment of the Confederate Government, whatsoever. I furnished no aid, supplies, stores or property of any kind, for the use and benefit of the Army, Navy, or force or organization of any sort, Soldier or Sailor of the Confederate states, or any state in rebellion, neither give any information.
Ques. 19 Ans. I never was employed or interested in the manufacture of any article for man or beast to use by, or the benefit of the Confederate states.
Ques. 20 Ans. I had nothing to do with impressments, collections, purchase or sale of anything for the use of the Confederate Government, Army or Navy.
Ques. 21 Ans. I run no blockade, nor engaged in illicit traffic between the lines, or interested therein. Nor had any shares or interest in any kind of goods brought in, or sent out, during the war.
Ques. 22 Ans. I did not leave the Confederate States, during the War.
Ques. 23 Ans. I had no interest or ownership in any vessel on any water or for any purpose.
Ques. 24 Ans. I was arrested. I was released without taking an oath. I was arrested also by the U.S. only held a few hours.
Ques. 25 Ans. I had 15 horses taken during the War, and all kinds of grain. I was paid in currency for a part.
Ques. 26 Ans. I was threatened of being hung.
Ques. 27 Ans. I was not molested.
Ques. 28 Ans. I contributed nothing for the United States.
Ques. 29 Ans. I did help Union men to keep out of the rebel service.
Ques. 30 Ans. I had two Nephews, named Jacob Frank, and John A. Alger. I did nothing for them, they afterwards left the service.
Ques. 31 Ans. I had no bonds, or interest in any. I did nothing to support the credit of the Confederacy.
Ques. 32 Ans. I give no aid and Comfort to the rebellion.
Ques. 33 Ans. I never made a raid from any quarter and never engaged in the destruction of commerce.
Ques. 34 Ans. I held no one in custody, for any purpose or cause.
Ques. 35 Ans. I never belonged to any society or association for the punishment in any form for any cause whatsoever.
Ques. 36 Ans. I never was a parolled prisoner.
Ques. 37 Ans. I held no office in the Army or Navy of the United States. Nor educated in any of her schools.
Ques. 38 Ans. I had no pass.
Ques. 39 Ans. I was under no disability.
Ques. 40 Ans. My sympathies were with the Union first and last. I had no kind feelings for the rebellion. I used my influence in favor of the Union & voted for the Union Candidates to the State Convention. I did not vote for the Ordinance of Secession. After its adoption I adhered to the Union.
Ques. 41 Ans. In conclusion, I do solemnly declare, that from the beginnning of hostilities against the United States to the end thereof, my sympathies were constantly with the cause of the United States, that I never of my own free will and accord did anything, or sought, offered, or attempted to do anything by word or deed to injure said cause or retard its success. And that I was at all times ready and willing 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 would permit.
Taking of Property. Same Deposition.
Ques 1 Ans. I was present and saw the Bacon, Corn, Oats, & Sugar taken.
Ques. 3 Ans. The Bacon was taken out of my Meat house. The Corn & Oats from my granary & the Sugar from the Cellar of my dwelling.
Ques. 4 Ans. The property was taken in June 1864 I think the 9th or 10th day. There Officers present but I did not know names or rank. I suppose there were 500 soldiers present. A number were engaged in taking the property.
Ques. 5 Ans. Mr. Jamison, Mrs. Guthrie, Mrs. Hall and others were present, besides my family.
Ques. 6 Ans. There were several Officers but I did not know any of them. The Officers told me the needed such articles, as they could not get to their supplies.
Ques. 7 Ans. The Bacon & Grain, was carried off in bags and in hand. The sugar was Maple or Home made and carried off in the hands of Soldiers.
Ques. 8 Ans. The property was taken off by soldiers on horseback.
Ques. 9 Ans. The Command was marching.
Ques. 10 Ans. I only know what they said, that they needed supplies, and horses too. I saw one horse in their possession. That one was taken out of the plow in the Cornfield. The other two were taken from my stable.
Ques. 11 Ans. I asked to get the horse which I saw, not knowing then that the two others had been taken from my Stable. They refused giving as a reason that they needed horses, but said I would get paid for him.
Ques. 12 Ans. I asked for no receipt.
Ques. 13 Ans. It was in day time about 10 or 11 A.M. There was no secrecy in taking it.
Ques. 14 Ans. There was no encampment, but had been one at Staunton, about 7 miles distant, but had broken camp that morning, and was en route. The Army was in Command in Command of Genl. Hunter. There had been a battle at Piedmont on the Sunday prior and were skirmishing that morning, with Genl. Imboden. I knew no Quarter Master, or other Officer. I heard one of the Officers called Col. Singleton, he seemed to know me by reputation.
Ques. 15 Ans. The Sorrel horse, was 9 or 10 years old 17 1/2 hands high, in fine order, and of fine action. I had frequently refused $200 for him. The black horse was 6 years old, good medium size, a natural pacer, he was in fine, order, he had only one eye, he was worth $150. And the bay horse was about 5 years, fine order, and sound, he was worth $175. The Bacon all sound and good the grain sound also. Sugar & Butter good too. I do not think that any of the articles are over charged. I estimated the quantity of prices, and the grain I estimated in bulk.
Jacob Stover
Testimony: Mollie E. Koiner
Deposition of Mollie E. Koiner
My name is Mollie E. Koiner, my age is 24 years. My residence near Fishersville. I am the daughter of the claimant, but have no interest in the claim.
I was present and saw the bay horse taken, also the bacon, Corn, Oats, Sugar and Butter.
Ques. 3 Ans. I saw the bay being led from the stable, by a soldier. The bacon from the Meat house, and the grain from the Granary. The Sugar was taken from the cellar. (A part Maple, and part coffee sugar.) The Coffee Sugar was in a keg. When I saw the bay horse leading off I went immediately to the stable and the black horse was gone, but I did not see him taken.
Ques. 4 Ans. I think it was the 10th of June 1864. There was one soldier leading the bay horse off, though there were a large number of soldiers in the field. There were several hundred in all, engaged in examining the premises, taking the bacon, grain, Sugar & Butter the last was in the Spring house. They were on the farm, probably three or four hours.
Ques. 5 Ans. Mrs. Jamison, Mrs. Hall and I think a Mrs. Guthrie were present besides my mother and father a part of the time.
Ques. 6 Ans. I do not know whether there was any officers present or not. I thinkwas there was an officer present, as one man entered the house and made the soldiers leave, I heard no name, he told me when he saw me weeping about the black horse, the one I always rode, that if I could show him the soldier who took the horse, he would make him give him up.
Ques. 7 Ans. The property was taken as I have described in my previous answer.
Ques. 8 Ans. There were no Wagons, and the property was taken by soldiers on horses. The Oats were all fed, I think, before they left the yard, some corn fed too & the balance carried off in bags. I saw some bacon in sacks.
Ques. 9 Ans. The Soldiers were marching. I did not follow.
Ques. 10 Ans. I do not know the use. I saw the Oats and a part of the Corn fed.
Ques. 11 Ans. I heard no complaint made.
Ques. 12 Ans. I never heard of any receipt.
Ques. 13 Ans. The property taken in the day time I suppose about 10 A.M. They took every thing as though it belonged to them.
Ques. 14 Ans. I knew of no encampment. I heard of that Genl. Hunter's had been camped at Staunton, about 7 miles distant. There had been a battle a few days before at Piedmont. I understood there had been some little skirmish that morning in the direction of Waynesboro.
Ques. 15 Ans. The bacon & Butter were a good Article, and I suppose the grain was too. I prized the black horse very highly and they were all good. The bacon, butter, sugar nor grain was not measured or weighed that I know of.
Mollie E. Koiner
Testimony: William P. Jamison
Deposition of William P. Jamison
My name is William P. Jamison, my age is 24 years. I reside near Fishersville, in Augusta County. I am a farmer. I am not related to the claimant, and have no benefit in the claim. I was present and saw the horse taken out of the plow in the Corn field, and then went to the house and saw the two horses taken out of the stable. I did not see the bacon taken. I helped to fill up the Oats. I did not see the Corn taken. I did see the Maple Sugar taken but not the Coffee Sugar. Nor the butter.
There were 30 or 35 come to the field, and two crossed to the plow and took the Sorrel horse. The geer was taken off, which I took to the house. There were three at the Stable when the black horse was taken, he was rode off bare back, and in about ten minutes, quite a number of soldiers at the stable when the bay horse was taken, and he as rode off by a wounded soldier. The Oats were fed, or nearly all, before they left.
I do not know about Officers being present. There was one man, who seemed to command, as he hurried them off. I suppose they were on the place, some two or three hours. The property was taken in the day time, about 9 or 10 A.M. There was no camp nearer than Staunton about 6 or 7 miles distant. I heard that the Army was Genl. Hunters. I heard the soldiers say that the camp had broken that morning. I do not remember the time, month or year, there had been a battle a few days before, I think it was called the battle of Piedmont. The soldiers said that day that they were then going to Lynchburg.
The Sorrel horse I suppose was 10 or 11 years old, he was very large and valuable. I would think he was worth at least $175. The black was 6 or 7 years old, he was a fine family horse, rode finely. I think he was worth, to a man who wanted a good riding horse $150. The bay was about 4 years, well formed, well broken to the saddle, of fine mettle and beautiful. I think he was worth $160. The Corn was in the cob and the Oats shelled. I should judge from the pile there was between 50 & 100 bushels. I think the garner containing the Oats would hold 50 or 60 bushels and the garner was very near full. I never had a particular conversation with the claimant about the value of the horses or grain.
W.P. Jamison
Testimony: Henry B. Jones
Testimony as to Loyalty
Deposition of Henry B. Jones
Answer to 1st genl. Question. My name is Henry B. Jones my age is 54 years. I reside near Fishersville, Augusta County. I am a farmer by occupation. I am not related to the claimant. I have known the claimant about 30 years I lived about 25 miles from him during the War. I saw him frequently during the War, probably five or six times a year. We were intimate and talked freely about the War, he knew I was a Union man. All his expressions and sympathies were in favor of the United States. I do not recollect that I ever heard him speak in presence of others. I never heard his loyalty to the Union questioned by any Union man. I never knew or heard of his doing anything to aid the rebellion. He had a son in the Union Army, as I understood and believe. I do not believe that the claimant could have proven any loyal feeling or act to the Confederate States, if they had been successful in gaining an independence.
H.B. Jones
Testimony: Henry C. Kindig
Deposition of Henry C. Kindig
Answer to 1st general question My name is Henry C. Kindig my age is 48 years. I reside near Waynesboro. My occupation is a farmer. I am not related to the Claimant. I have known the Claimant about 25 years. I lived about two miles from him during the War. I saw him frequently, sometimes twice a week. We always talked freely about the War, I always found him opposed to the War. His expressions and sympathies were invariably with the side of the Union. He wanted the Union Army to be successful and said if it was not he could not stay here. Every where, I ever met him he was the same. I have heard him express himself in the presence of Union men. I agreed with him and he knew that. His Union neighbors had full confidence in him as a true Union man. I never knew him to give any aid or comfort to the Rebellion. His son John A. Stover, belonged to the Union Army. He volunteered in Ohio. He is now living, and resides near New Hope in Augusta Co. I do not believe that he could have shown any loyalty to the South, if it had gained an independent government.
Henry C. Kindig
Testimony: Motion to Substitute
COURT OF CLAIMS. DECMEBER TERM 1895-96.
John A. Stover, Adm'r., Jacob Stover, Dec., vs. The United States No. 6816 Cong.
MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE ADM'R. AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION WITH COPIES.
Gilbert Moyers, Attorney for the claimant, in the above entitled cause, moves this Honorable Court to substitute in the further prosecution of said cause John A. Stover, as the Adm'r. of Jacob Stover, deceased.
Duly certified copy of letters of administration filed herewith.
Leave is asked to file petition with copies.
Respectfully Submitted, Gilbert Moyers, ATTY FOR C'L'M'T. [filed January 15, 1896]
Testimony: Claimant's Request for Findings of Fact
COURT OF CLAIMS. DECEMBER TERM 1895-96.
John A. Stover, Adm'r., Jacob Stover, Dec., vs. The United States No. 6816 Cong.
CLAIMANT'S REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS OF FACT.
The claimant considering the facts hereinafter set forth to be proven, and deeming them material to the due presentation of this claim in the findings of fact, request the Court to find the same as follows:--
I. That the deceased claimant, Jacob Stover, late 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 war loyal to the Govt. of the U.S.
II. That during the said period, the United States forces by proper authority took from said decedent quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $623.00 and appropriated the same to their use as follows:--3 horses, $150 each: $450.00; 500 lbs. bacon: 100.00; Corn & Oats: 65.00; 50 lbs. sugar: 8.00; Total: $623.00.
III. That no payment has been made for said property or any portion thereof.
Respectfully Submitted, Gilbert Moyers, Atty. for Claimant.
Testimony: Defendant's Brief on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term 1895.
Jacob Stover vs. The United States. No. 6816.
DEFENDANT'S BRIEF ON LOYALTY.
The evidence is correctly abstracted in claimant's brief on loyalty.
The reports of Treasury and War Departments show disloyal acts of persons named Jacob Stover or J. Stover but as I am satisfied that nonwe of them was this claimant I wll not produce the records at the trial of the case unless the Court shall desire it.
Saml A Putman Assistant Attorney.
Testimony: Claimant's Brief on Merits
COURT OF CLAIMS. DECEMBER TERM 1895-96.
John A. Stover, Adm'r., Jacob Stover, Dec., vs. The United States No. 6816 Cong.
STATEMENT.
The deceased claimant resided in Augusta Co., Va., during the late war of the rebellion. The Commissioners of Claims rejected because they were not convinced of loyalty. The claim was transmitted to the Court by the Committee on War Claims, Feb. 15th, 1889. The deceased 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 decedent's premises near Fishersville, Augusta Co., Va., on or about the 9th of June '64 by Col. Singleton, of Gen'l. Hunter's army, the following stores and supplies:--1 large sorrel horse, 9 years old: $175.00; 1 black riding horse, 6 years old: 175.00; 1 bay riding horse, 5 years old: 175.00; 500 lbs. bacon at 20 cts: 100.00; 40 bus. corn at $1 per bu: 40.00; 50 bus. oats at 50 cts: 25.00; 50 lbs. sugar: 8.00; 30 lbs. butter: 7.00; Total $680.00.
The following testimony was taken while the claim was pending before the Commissioners in March 1873.
JACOB STOVER testifies: age 55; residence near Fishersville, Va. Am the claimant. (P. 1). Testifies as to loyalty. I had 207 acres, about 172 acres in cultivation and the balance in timber. (P. 2). I was present and saw the bacon, corn and oats and sugar taken. The bacon was taken out of my meat house. The corn and oats from my granary and the sugar from the cellar of my dwelling. The property was taken in June '64 I think the 9th or 10th day. Officers present. Did not know name or rank. I suppose there were 500 soldiers present. A number were engaged in taking the property. Names those who were present. There were several officers, but I did not know any of them. The officers told me they needed such articles, as they could not get to their supplies. (P. 5). The bacon and grain were carried off in bags and in hand. The sugar was maple or home made and carried off in the hands of soldiers. The property was taken off by soldiers on horse back. The command was marching. I only know what they said, that they needed supplies and horses too. I saw one horse in their possession that was taken out of the plow in the corn field. The other two were taken from my stable. I asked to get the horse which I saw not knowing the two others had been taken from the stable. They refused giving as a reason that they needed horses, but said that I would get paid for him. I asked for no receipt. Taken in the day time about 10 or 11 o'clock. There was no secrecy in the taking. There was no encampment but had been one at Staunton about 7 miles distant, but had broken camp that morning and was enroute. The army was in command of Gen'l. Hunter There had been a battle at Piedmont on the Sunday prior and were skermishing that morning with Gen'l. Imboden. Knew no Q.M. or other officer. I heard one of the officers called Col. Singleton. He seemed to know me by reputation.
The sorrel horse was 9 or 10 years old, 17-1/2 hands high, in fine order, and of fine action. I had frequently refused $200 for him. The black horse was 6 years old, good medium size, a natural pacer. He was in fine order, he had only one eye, worth $150. The bay horse was about 5 years old, fine order, and sound. He was worth $175.
The bacon all sound and good. The grain sound, also the sugar and butter. I don't think that any of the articles are over charged. I estimated the quantity of pieces. The grain I estimated in bulk.
MOLLIE E.KOINER testifies: age 24; residence Fishersville, Daughter of claimant. I was present and saw the bay horse taken, also the bacon, corn, oats, sugar and butter. (P. 7). I saw the bay being led from the stable by a soldier. The bacon from the meat house and the grain from the granary. The sugar was taken from the cellar. (part maple and part coffee sugar) The coffee sugar was in a keg. When I saw the bay horse being led off I went immediately to the stable and the black horse was gone, but I did not see him taken. I think it was the 10th of June '64. There was one soldier leading the horse off., though there were a large number of soldiers in the fields, several hundred in all engaged in examining the premises, taking the bacon, grain, sugar and butter, the last was in the spring house. They were on the farm probably three or four hours. Names those who were present. I did not know whether there was any officer present or not. I Think there was an officer present, as one man entered the house and made the soldiers leave. I heard no name. He told me when he saw me weeping about the black horse, the one I rode, that if I could show him the soldier who took the horse he would make him give him up. (P. 8). There was no wagons, property taken by soldiers on horses. The oats were all fed. I think before they left the yard. Some corn fed too and the balance carried off in bags. I saw some bacon in sacks. The soldiers were marching. I did not follow. I do not know the use. I saw the oats and a part of the corn fed. Heard no complaint made. I never heard of any complaint made. I never heard of any receipt. The property was taken in the day time. I suppose about 10 A.M. They took everything as though it belonged to them. I know of no encampment I heard that Gen. Humters had been camped at Staunton, about 7 miles distant. There had been a battle a few days before at Piedmont. I understood there had been some little skermish that moningg in the direction of Waynesboro. (P. 9). The bacon and butter were a good article. Suppose the grain was too. I price the black horse very highly and they were all good. The bacon, butter, sugar nor grain was not measured or weighted that I know of.
WM. P. JAMISON testifies: age 24; residence near Fishersville, Farmer. Not related or interested. I was present and saw the horse taken out of the plow in the corn field, and then went to the house and saw the two horses taken out of the stable. I did not see the bacon taken. I helped to fill up the oats. I did not see the corn taken. I did see the maple sugar taken but not the coffee, sugar nor butter. There were 30 or 35 came to the field, and two crossed to the plow and took the sorrel horse. The geer was taken off, which I took to the house there were thre at the stable when the black horse was taken. He was rode off bare back and in about ten minutes quite a number of soldiers at the stable when the bay horse was taken, and he was rode off by a wounded soldier. (P. 10). The oats were fed, or nearly all, before they left. I do not know about officers being present. There was one man who seemed to command, as he hurried them off. I suppose they were on the place some two or three hours. The property was taken in the day time about 9 or 10 o(clock. There was no camp nearner than Staunton about 6 or 7 miles distant. I heard that the army was Gen'l. Hunters. I heard the soldiers say that the camp had broken that morning. I do not remember the time, month or the year. There had been a battle a few days before. I think it was called the battle of Piedmont. The soldiers said that day that they were then going to Lynchburg. The sorrel horse I suppose was 10 or 11 years old. He was very large and valuable. I would think he was worth at least S175. The black was 6 or 7 years old. He was a fine family horse, rode finely I think he was worth to a man who wanted a good riding horse $150. The bay was abut 4 years old well formed, well broken to the saddle of fine mettle, and beautiful I think he was worth $160. (P. 11). The corn was on the cob and the oats shelled. I should judge from the pile there were between 50 and 100 bus. I think the garner containing the oats would hold 50 or 60 bushels, and the garner was very near full. I never had a particular conversation with the claimant about the value of the horses or grain. (P. 12).
SUMMARY.
HORSES.
1 sorrel horse: $175.00; 1 black horse: 175.00; 1 bay riding horse: 150.00; total: 500.00.
Claimant testifies: farm mantained 207 acres, about 172 in cultivation. Property taken in June '64. Estimates there were five hundred soldiers present with officers. That the officers told him they needed the property (P. 2). Saw one of the horses in their possession. This horse was taken from out of the plow and the other two were taken from the stable. He asked them to give him the horse that he saw at the time not knowing that the other two had been taken. Was refused. Said they needed the horse and he would be paid. The sorrel horse was 9 or 10 years old, 17-1/2 hands high, fine order fine action. Frequently refused $200 for him. (P. 3). The black horse six years old, medium size, fine order, had only one eye worth $150. The hay horse was about five years old fine order, sound and worth $175.
MOLLIE E. KOINER testifies: daughter, saw the bay horse taken from the stable by a soldier Went immediately to the stable and found the black horse was gone. Did not see him taken. This was about the 10th of June '64. One soldier led the bay horse off, but several hundred on the premises (P. 4). Think there was an officer present. He said if I would show him the soldier who took the black horse he would make him give him up. They were all good horses (P. 5).
Wm. P. Jamison testifies: Saw the horse taken out of the plow and cornfield, then went to the house and saw the two horses taken out of the stable. There were 30 or 35 soldiers that came to the field. There were three at the stable when the black horse was taken. They rode him off bare back. In about ten minutes there was quite a number of soldiers at the stable when the bay horse was taken and he was rode off by wounded soldier. One man seemed to be in command. There was no camp nearer than Staunton, six or seven miles distant (P. 6). The sorrel horse, I suppose was 10 or 11 years old, very large and valuable. Think worth at least $175. The black was six or seven years old. Fine family horse. Fine rider, worth $150. The bay was about four years old, well broke to the saddle formed well Beautiful horse, think worth $160
This testimony establishes the taking of the three horses charged for at time the Govt. was paying $160 to $170 for serviceable horses.
For the three horses the claimant should not be allowed less than $150 each: $450.00.
BACON
500 lbs. bacon, 20 cts: $100.00.
Claimant testifies that he was present and saw the bacon taken in June '64 by a Federal command of officers supposes that 500 soldiers were present. The officers said they needed the property (P. 2). The bacon they carried off in bags and in hand. (P. 3). Was sound, good bacon. Don't think I have overcharged for any of the articles, estimate the quantity from the number of pieces.
Mollie E. Koiner testifies: Was present and saw the bacon taken from the meat house. Several hundred soldiers on the premises (P. 4). Think there was an officer present. Saw some of the bacon in sacks. Soldiers were marching. The bacon was good. Was not weighed that she knows of (P. 5).
Wm. P. Jamison testifies: did not see the bacon taken.
The taking of the bacon is proven by two witnesses. There is no reason for doubting the estimate made by the claimant. The price charged is reasonable.
There should allowed for 500 lbs. bacon: $100.00
CORN & OATS.
40 bus. corn: $40.00; 50 bus. oats: 25.00; Total: $65.00
Claimant testifies he was present and saw the corn and oats taken from his grainary in June '64, about 500 men & officers present (P. 2). The grain was carried off in bags. The grain was sound. Estimate the oats and corn by the bulk. Don't think the charge is more than at the articles were worth.
Mollie E. Koiner testifies: Was present and saw the corn and oats taken. There was several hundred soldiers on the premises with officers. (P.4). The oats were all fed before they left. Some corn was fed the balance carried off in bags. Saw the oats and part of the corn fed. The grain was not measured that I know of. (P. 5).
Wm. P. Jamison testifies: I helped to fill up the oats. Did not see the corn taken. The oats were nearly all fed before they left. (P. 6). The corn on cob and oats shelled. Judging from the pile there was between 50 and 100 bus. Think the garner containing the oats would hold 50 or 60 bus. It was very near full.
Ther should be allowed for corn and oats: $65.00.
SUGAR.
50 lbs. sugar: $8.00.
Claimant's testimony shows that this sugar was taken from the cellar of his dwelling house, the same time the other property was taken, and by the same command. (P. 2). The soldiers carried it off in their hands. (P. 3). Quantity estimated.
Mrs. Koiner also saw the sugar taken from the cellar, part of it was maple sugar and part coffee sugar. (P. 4). Was not weighed that she knows of (P. 5).
Mr. Jamison saw the sugar taken. (P. 6).
There is no reason why an allowance should not be made for the sugar as charged.
50 lbs. sugar: $8.00.
The item for butter will be omitted.
The account should be stated as follows:--3 horses, $150 eacjh: $450.00; 500 lbs. bacon: 100.00; Corn & Oats: 65.00; 50 lbs. sugar: 8.00; Total: $623.00.
Respectfully Submitted, Gilbert Moyers ATTY FOR CLAIMANT
Testimony: Defendant's Brief on Merits
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
John A. Stover, Adm'r. Jacob Stover, Deceased, v. The United States No. 6816 Congressional.
Defendants' Brief on Merits.
This claim seems to have been rejected by the Southern Claims Commission on the question of loyalty; and it is now admitted on merits on the same evidence presented to the Claims Commission on this term.
That evidence consists of the testimony of three witnesses. These include: deceased claimant, his daughter, Molly E. Koiner, and William P. Jamison, the two latter witnesses seeming from the evidence to have been 15 years of age at the time the property is alleged to have been taken.
Three horses are alleged to have been taken, but the testimony as to their having been taken by Federal forces is hardly satisfactory, considering the fact that there were at the time they are alleged to at have been taken Confederate forces in that neighborhood or locality with which the Union forces were engaged in occasional skirmishes.
Decedent did not see any of the horses taken, but says he saw one of the horses in the possession of Federal soldiers; hence it is clear that he did not see either of the other two horses taken by, or in the possession of Federal soldiers; while his daughter, Mrs. Koiner, testifies to seeing but one horse taken.
If the court should consider the evidence sufficient to warrant a finding for any of the horses, the finding should, at the most, be fore not more than two of them. As to the rate of valuation of the horses, it is certainly excessive, and in this connection we call attention the fact that, according to claimant's testimony, one of the horses, for which $175 is charged, was blind in one eye.
As to the 500 pounds of bacon at 20 cents per pound, the only testimony in regard to this item is that of decedent and his daughter entirely to the effect that they saw the bacon taken. There is nothing upon which to have a finding for this item, i.e. as to the quantity taken, excepting the allegation of the petition as to the amount taken, and it not being competent evidence, we submit therefore that no allowance should be made for this item.
As to the items of corn and oats, decendent and his daughter testify to having seen the corn and oats taken, but neither of them give any testimony as to the quantity taken. William Jamison says he helped "to fill up the oats," but did not see the corn taken; and estimates that there were perhaps 50 bushels of oats taken. It seems to me that the evidence offered in support of these items is wholly insufficient to merit a finding.
As to the 50 pounds of sugar for which claim is made, claimant and his daughter, Mrs. Koiner, claim to have seen it taken. Decedent says he estimates the quantity taken to be about 50 pounds. Mrs. Koiner makes no estimate, and says that the sugar was not weighed that she knows of.
The item for butter has been abandoned by counsel for claimant.
Respectfully submitted, Chas. F. Kincheloe Assistant Attorney.
Testimony: Claimant's Reply Brief on Merits
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term 1899-1900.
JOHN A. STOVER, Administrator, JACOB STOVER, Deceased, VS. THE UNITED STATES. No. 6816 Congressional.
CLAIMANT'S REPLY BRIEF ON MERITS.
The conclusions reached by defendants' counsel for the testimony submitted are not justified. The charge is for three horses. Defendants' counsel says that the findings should at most be for not more than two. There is no avowed reason for this request for findings. The testimony very clearly establishes the taking of all three of the horses. Mr. Jamison, for instance, saw the horse which was taken from the plow, and then, he states, he went to the house and saw the two horses taken out of the stable; that there were 30 or 35 soldiers who came to the field and three at the stable. He describes how the black horse was removed; says they rode him off bareback, and in about ten minutes quite a number of soldiers were at the stable, when the bay horse was rode off by a wounded soldier. This certainly proves conclusively the taking of all three of the horses.
It is true that the claimant saw only one of the horses in the possession of the Federal forces, which had been taken from the field. He asked for the return of this horse, not knowing at the time that the other two had been taken.
His daughter saw one of the horses taken from the stable, the bay horse, and went immediately to the stable and found the black horse gone. This all occurred while the soldiers were there and is conclusive as to the taking of all three of the horses.
These horses were taken in 1864, when the government was paying $150 for serviceable stock. The finding should, therefore, be as requested.
Defendants' counsel is equally at fault as to the corn and oats taken. He says that neither of the witnesses give any estimate as to the quantity taken. The proof does not sustain him in this assertion.
The claimant estimates the oats and corn in a very proper manner by the bulk. He say that from the bulk they took 40 bushels of corn and 50 bushels of oats. A farmer can make a very correct as to the quantity in the bulk. His judgment in that regard is quite accurate.
Mr. Jamison also estimates from the pile of corn and oats shelled that there were between 50 and 100 bushels of corn, and from the garner containing the oats would hold 50 or 60 bushels.
We have quite definite proof as to the quantities of both of these items end there should be no change in the findings as requested. The same applies as to the bacon.
Respectfully submitted, Gilbert Moyers Attorney for Claimant.
Testimony: Finding of Facts
COURT OF CLAIMS. (Congressional Case No. 6816)
JOHN A. STOVER, Adm'r of JACOB STOVER, Dec'd vs. The United States
STATEMENT OF CASE:
The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the Court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 15th day of February 189, 1889.
On a preliminary inquiry the Court, on the 2nd day of November 1896, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war.
The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 23d day of October 189 1900. Gilbert Moyers, Esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, Esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interest of the United States.
The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Augusta County, State of Virginia, where decedent resided during the late was of the rebellion; that at different times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from said decedent quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $680.00, and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army;
Taken from the farm of the said decendent near Fisherville, Augusta County, Virginia, on or about the 9th of June 1864, by Col. Singleton of Gen. Hunter's Army; 1 large Sorrel Horse, 9 years old, $175.00; 1 black Riding Horse, 6 years old, 175.00; 1 bay Riding Horse, 5 years old, 150.00; 500 lbs Bacon at 20 cts per lb, 100.00; 40 bushels Corn at $1 per bushel, 40.00; 50 bushels Oats at 50 cts per bushel, 25.00; 50 lbs Sugar, 8.00; 30 lbs Butter, 7.00; Total $680.00
The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel of both sides, makes the following
FINDING OF FACTS.
There were taken from the claimant's decedent, in Augusta County, State of Virginia, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, stores and supplies of the above described, which were then and there reasonably worth the sum of Four hundred and five dollars ($405.00).
No payment appears to have been made thereof.
Testimony: Defendant's Motion for a New Trial on Loyalty
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES:
John A. Stover, Admr, Jacob Stover, Decd. vs. THE UNITED STATES, No. 6,816 Congressional.
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON LOYALTY.
NOW COME THE DEFENDANTS in the above entitled cause, and move the court to grant a new trial on the question of loyalty, on the ground that there are on file in the Confederate Archives Division of the War Department nine vouchers in favor of and receipted by claimant's decedent, Jacob Stover, for supplies furnished and services rendered by him to the Confederate military authorities during the War of the Rebellion, which vouchers strongly indicate disloyalty, and which were not considered by the court in the trail of the case on the question of loyalty; and also that the report of the Treasury Department of December 17, 1900, filed December 22, 1900, furnishes new evidence of disloyalty.
BRIEF ON MERITS.
This motion is based upon the fact that there are in the Confederate Archives Division of the War Department nine vouchers, receipted by claimant's decedent as paid, for supplies furnished and services rendered the Confederate military authorities by him throughout the War, said vouchers being as follows: One dated at Staunton, Va., Dec. 13, 1862, for hay, $100. One dated at Staunton, Va., Dec. 13, 1862, for hay, $930. One dated at Tinkling Spring, Va., May 26, 1863, for pasture of horses, $180. One dated at Staunton, Va., Sept. 18, 1863, for pasture and care of horses, $146.75; One dated at Staunton, Va., Sept. 27, 1863, for pasture of horses, $55.20; One dated "11th Reg. Va. Cavalry" March 11, 1864, for straw, $10.40; One dated at Waynesboro (state not given), March 13, 1864, for straw, $70.40; One dated at Staunton, Va., Sept. 13, 1864, for hay, $300. One dated at Staunton, Va., Sept. 1864, for hay, $54. Which said vouchers were not before, or considered by, the court in the trial of the case on the question of loyalty.
It is but proper to say that they were on file, at the time the case was tried on loyalty, report of the War Department stating that there were on file in said Department nine Confederate vouchers signed by one Jacob Stover; and to say that the failure of the court to inspect and consider said vouchers was doubtless due to the fact that the attorney then in charge of the case for the defence stated, in his brief on loyalty, that he was satisfied that none of the disloyal acts referred to in the reports of the War and Treasury Departments related to claimant's decedent; but while such statement by the then attorney for the defendants was doubtless based on his best judgment in the matter, we are satisfied, after having carefully compared the signatures of Jacob Stover on said vouchers with the known signatures of claimant's decedent on file in this case, that all of said vouchers were positively and unmistakably receipted by claimant's decedent, and we feel satisfied that like commission by the court can only convince the court that such is the fact.
And besides, in additon to the first report of the Treasury Department, stating that "the name of claimant appears on the copy of the list of those who voted for the Ordinance of Secession in Augusta County..." (the county in which he resided during the war), the Treasury Department, in a recent report, dated December 7, last, says, after referring to its former report above quoted from, "Moreover it may be stated that eleven other Stovers voted the same way, and not one of that name is found as having voted against the Ratification."
As explanatory of why the claim has been allowed to proceed to finding on merits before our making this motion for a new trial, we wish to say that the our absence on leave, but with an express verbal agreement that the case should be remanded in case we should have reason therefor and so desired. In addition, we also called attention to the fact that the recent Treasury report in question was not received until December 21, last, some two months after the case was submitted on Merits.
We will further add that the evidence offered by claimant to establish loyalty, is of rather weak character, although sufficient to warrant a finding of loyalty in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
In view of the above stated facts, we feel justified in asking, and feel that the court should grant a new trial on loyalty.
Respectfully submitted, Chas F Kincheloe Assistant Attorney.
Testimony: Reply to Defendant's Brief
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. December Term 1900-01.
JOHN E. STOVER, Administrator of JACOB STOVER, Deceased, vs THE UNITED STATES No. 6816 Cong.
REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' BRIEF ON MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON LOYALTY.
The claimant in this case, Jacob Stover, was found to be loyal November 2nd, 1896. The case then proceeded to trial on merits, and on October 29th, 1900 the Court found in favor of claimant for $405.00.
Now, after all this time has elapsed the defendant comes in with a motion filed on January 12th, 1901, asking for a new trial on loyalty. This motion should not be entertained for the following reasons:
1st. That the report of the Confederate Archives upon which defendants' counsel relies of nine vouchers was before the Court when this case was tried originally for loyalty. These vouchers were investigated and it was found that no disloyalty attached to them. The case was ably defended by competent counsel, so this is not newly discovered evidence. Counsel now excuses himself for making this motion on the ground that his predecessor erred in stating that he was satisfied that none of these vouchers related to the claimant. Counsel defending this case should have had those vouchers produced in court and had them exhibited for the examination of the Court to determine as to their genuineness so this whole matter was before the Court on the original trial. But, admitting for the sake of argument that these vouchers were signed dy the claimant, they do not import disloyalty for the reason that the claimant states in his deposition in this case taken in 1873 that he had 15 horses taken and all kinds of Grain by the Confederates and they paid him for part of this in currency; so more then what is covered by the vouchers in question is testified to by the claimant as having been taken from him by the Confederate forces, more in value.. With this testimony before the Commissionens of Claims and the reports of these vouchers the Commissioners did not reject this claim on the Ground of these vouchers, but it was on another and entirely and different ground, and the second ground upon which defendantS' attorney bases his motion for a new trial on loyalty which will be considered in its order.
In the first place these vouchers are all with one exception for small amounts, for what a Confederate scout would use stopping a night or a day at a plantation, and they are for just what scouting services would require, just what a Confederate c command on the march would need stopping over night at a plantation; they are for hay taken at different times ranging from December 13th, 1862, to September 13th, 1864 and in amounts from $10.40 up to $300, one only of $930; that is for hay taken December 15th, 1862, in the winter season when much hay was needed. The claimant doubtless refers to these same transactions in giving his testimony. He may have called hay grain inadvertently referring to what was required to be fed to animals, and he acknowledges that his property was taken. There is no evidence of it being sold, but that he received pay. No disloyalty attaches to these transactions and the Court has so ruled repeatedly. Furthermore, I insist, that inasmuch as these same vouchers were before the Commissioners and before the Court necessarily at the former hearing this notion cannot be entertained on the strength of these vouchers as newly discovered evidence.
2nd. This motion should be dismissed for the reason that the claimant did not vote, for secession as alleged by defendants counsel. On September 21st 1900 the war Department reported to the Department of Justice, which report was filed by the Assistant Attorney General as evidence for the defense, that "Nothing has been found in said Archives to show whether or not Jacob Stover voted for the ordinance of secession: and nothing additional has been found touching the question of loyalty or disloyalty of the within named man". This report was before the Court when the case was decided on loyalty, and also the oath of the claimant to the following effect: "I used my influence in favor of the Union and voted for Union candidates to the State convention; didn't vote for the ordinance of secession". Now, counsel in support of this contention that this claimant did vote for the ordinance of secession refers to the report of the Treasury Department dated December 17th, 1900 while he overlooks or disregards the report made by the Treasury Department of July 23rd, 1892, (which was before the Court inwhen this case was decided on loyalty) in which the Secretary reports that he "has the honor to state that the name of claimant appears in a copy of the list of those who voted for the ordinance of secession in the county of Augusta, Virginia, the original of which is presumed to be in the custody of the Clerk of the Court of said county"; so this whole matter was before the Court when the case was peviously decided.
There is nothing here in the nature of newly discovered evidence; there is nothing whatever that justifies this motion on either ground, that is, on the ground of the vouchers for forage, etc. or on the ground of claimant having voted for secession.
The Court was satisfied upon the trial of this case that this claimant was not the same Jacob Stover whose vote was cast at his precinct, but a different precinct in that county where there was a Jacob Stover resided who was a secessionist; and he was the man undoubtedly who cast the vote in favor of secession, so it must have arrived at that conclusion in order to have held this claimant loyal. The vote for secession waas was at a precinct called Middlebrook, while claimant himself voted at Fisherville, and the certificate of the clerk shows that he does not find the name of Jacob Stover, who resides in the precinct of Fisherville on any of said poll books of that county. So, this would seem to settle the question of claimant's vote for secession. But, in order to make this matter more conclusive still the antentive attention of the Court is directed to certain affidavits bearing upon this question herewith filed in support of the defense, which were sworn to in 1875. These affidavits are substantially as follows:
William A. Burnett, Clerk of the County Court, Augusta County (the same County where claimant resided) certifies that he has made a careful examination onfrom all the poll books of said county upon the vote taken on the ordinance of secession on the 26th of May 1861 and that the name of Jacob Stover appears upon the Middlebrook poll book of said county as having voted for said ordinance of secession; that there was a person by that name residing in the vicinity of Middlebrook at the date mentioned; that William R. Dunlap, William Thompson, and E. Hogshead were the Commissioners who conducted the election at said Middlebrook precinct on the 26th day of May 1861. And be further certifies that the name of Jacob Stover, who resided in the vicinity of Fisherville, Augusta County, does not appear on any one of said poll books of the 26th of May 1861. Given under my hand this 4th day of February 1875.
Also the attention of the Court is directed to a statement made by some 19 citizens of Augusta County, who state they have known Jacob Stover intimately both before and during the late war and having had perfect knowledge of his loyal sympathies at that period we unhesitatingly declare that we have full confidence in all statements contained in the annexed affidavit; and we further declare that to the best of our knowledge he did not vote for the ordinance of secession. The affidavit referred to is substantially as follows:
Jacob Stover states on oath that he did not vote for on the question of the ratification of the ordinance of secession at the election in May 1861; that he did not attend the election on may that day; that he was in the County of Rockingham and only returned home on the evening of the day of the election, returning under cover of night having given free expression to his sentiments o of uncompromising hostility to secession threats of violence a against him had been freely indulged, and in order to escape the threatened violence he remained away. In February, he states, he voted for the Union candidates; that he never cast a vote from that day until after the close of hostilities between the sections. Furthermore, he affirms that he was several times arrested and would no doubt have been incarcerated in Castle Thunder had not my guards been compelled to relieve release himme on account of being hard pressed by the Federal troops. He further states on oath that the Confederate States took from him property to the amount of several thousand dollars, vouchers for which he now has and for which no payment was received. (Of course this does not refer to where they paid him in currency). This was sworn to before a Notary Public on the 1st of February 1875. G.W. Sutker states that he knew Mr. Stover intimately at the time of the submission to the people of the ordinance of secession in 1861, and that he did not vote at Fisherville, his voting precinct on that day, but that he was considered an uncompromising Union man.
Mr. D W. Coiner makes affidavit on the 1st day of February 1875 that he is well acquainted with Mr. Jacob Stover and has been for many years before the breaking out of the war, and knew him to be an uncompromising Union man and that he continued so during hostilities and has so continued to this time. He further states that he was severely denounced by those of a different political opinion at the time and during the war; that he has known Mr. Stover personally for more than 30 years and belives that his statements are entitled to full faith and credit, that he and Mr. Stover had several discussions at the beginning of our late troubles touching the question of secession; that one prediction of his was "that secession would stink in my nose before we got through with it."
Another affidavit is that of David Myers sworn to February 4th, 1875, in which he states substantially that he has known Jacob Stover, the claimant, for a number of years prior to the war and at that time and since; he further states that he knew him as an uncompromisingly opposed to secession, and he is satisfied that he, Stover, did not vote for the ratification of the ordinance of secession for the reason that on the day the vote was taken the said Jacob Stover stopped at his house on his return from Rockingham county; that he reamined at his house until near sunset of said day and could not have reached the voting place before dark and that he did not wish to be at home or in the neighborhood on that day as threats had been made against him.
Also the following affidavit made by I.L. Timberlake on February 4th, 1875: resides at Staunton, Va., was frequently at Jacob Stover's near Fisherville in Augusta County in an offical character and in ever instance on which he did visit him for supplies or other aid to the Confederate cause found him opposed to doing anything and whenever it became his duty to take from him he had to do it under his protest. He further states that he believed him to be an honest Union man and that he prevented his arrest on several occasions; he further states that he never knew said Stover to receive a dollar for any supplies taken from him and that he was satisfied hundreds of dollars worth were taken, but invariably under his protest; he further says he ragrded him as uncompromising in his opposition to the Confederacy and never heard a doubt expressed as to his sincerity. This affiant was a quartermaster's sergeant for the Confederate army at Staunton.
H.B. Jones makes affidavit on the 1st day of February, 1875, to the following effect: That he is a citizen of Augusta County; that Jacob Stover was at his house in the County of Rockingham,--my residence being thene in that county-on the day of election held for taking the vote on the question of the ratification of an ordinance of secession passed by the Virginia Convention, and that I had then a perfect knowledge of his political sympathies and know him to have been uncompromisingly opposed to secession, and do not believe that he would have voted for said ordinance had he been at home.
G.W. Sutler also says under oath that such had been Mr. Stover's known character as a Union man that certain parties boldly declared their intentions of violently subjecting him to a "ducking" if he voted against the ordinance of secession.
Now, in contention with the testimony of claimant in this case and these affidavits, and the evidence that there was a secessionist residing near Middlebrook where by the name of Jacob Stover where the secession vote was cast the presumption is irressistible that he was the Jacob Stover who voted for secession and not this claimant. Therefore in view of the foregoing facts both as to the vouchers and as to the vote the Court will certainly overrule the defendants' motion and allow the claimant to receive the small amount that has been awarded him.
Respectfully submitted, Gilbert Moyers Attorney for Claimant.
Bibliographic Information : Southern Claims Commission: Claim of Jacob Stover, March 12, 1873, Claim No. 19,888, Source copy consulted: National Archives, Washington, D.C., RG #123, Congressional Jurisdiction #6816.
