Viewing page 86 of 292

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

8
[[stamp]] THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF THE UNITED STATES [[/stamp]]

Argument of Defendants Counsel submitted to the Court in the case of 

Morris Le Conte vs L. John Mallard } Trover &c

1st. The mule in controversy never was the property of Morris Le Conte - His title was only a possessor title. The title of Horses and mules Branded U.S. in Feb' 1865 was in the United States, and no Federal officer could by parol create a gift of such property - but the title to said property could only be conveyed by a duly authorized officer at public sales.

2nd. If the first proposition be true then this property was the property of the United States and was liable to seizure and capture by any Belligerent in a state of war with the United States.
De Vattel's Laws of Nations Book 3rd Chapter 18 Paragraph 195. Also ibid Book 3rd Chap 18 paragraph 292.

3rd. This state of war exists between the United States and the Confederate States that the right of Belligerents appertained to each, that in pursuance thereof Col Hood gave orders to his soldiers to capture the United States horses and mules, branded U.S. and in the possession of negroes. Acts under this order were lawful, and property seized thereby was a lawful capture. 

Transcription Notes:
Unsure on 8