Boyd, C. J.: Petition, Kentucky Counties
Zoom in to read each word clearly.
Some images may have writing in several directions. To rotate an image, hold down shift-Alt and use your mouse to spin the image so it is readable.
(6) the rights of the parties. As to the amount of property taken I have no information except from hearsay, except as to the negroes which I saw myself. Mr James S. Layne is a very old man, and had done, so far as I know or have heard, no disloyal act. Mrs C. Hatcher is a widow lady whose sons are all (three in number) for the South. Mr C. Boyd is a warm friend of the South, has a son in the Confederate Army, and raised a command when Bragg was in Kentucky, but was captured before he got out of the State,and suffered for a long time in a northern bastile, and is now an exile from his home for his political sentiments.
With high consideration your friend & obt Servt. J. M. Elliott."
Auditing Board of Virginia, January 26, 1864. The Board rejects this claim for the reasons assigned by the Attorney General in his opinion. Which opinion is in the words following towit:
"Richmond, Jan. 26. 1864. I am of opinion that the seizure of the property mentioned in the petition, if unauthorized and not a military necessity, creates a liability upon the party seizing, but does not create one upon the State.
I do not think the State Line troops had authority to seize the property in Kentucky, even if they had it within the State; and I therefore do not see that any liability has attached to the State.
I am further of opinion that the Board Should not audit and allow this claim, upon the further ground, that I doubt whether its authority extends to such cases: and the Board has hitherto properly declined to do so in the cases of railroad property destroyed upon military necessity, for wagons I then thought and still think right.
I am further of opinion that the Board should not pay this claim, were all other difficulties removed, until the facts which led to the seizure, and the property really taken, be avouched to the Board by the officers of the State line charged therewith.
Upon the whole, I think the claim has no such basis as would justify an allowance of it; and the parties should be left to their redress
[facing page] (7) redress against the Seizors, or by application to the General Assembly. Auditing Board of Va. J. R. Tucker." Teste N. P. Howard, Clk pro tempore of Auditing Board of Virginia.