hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
Kirk Otey 14 0 Browse Search
Hawkins 12 0 Browse Search
Lookout Mountain, Tenn. (Tennessee, United States) 12 0 Browse Search
W. Hi F. Lee 11 1 Browse Search
United States (United States) 10 0 Browse Search
Sparrell B. Wright 8 0 Browse Search
Belle Isle, Va. (Virginia, United States) 6 0 Browse Search
Hagerstown (Maryland, United States) 6 0 Browse Search
John Murphy 6 0 Browse Search
November 25th 6 6 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of The Daily Dispatch: November 26, 1863., [Electronic resource]. Search the whole document.

Found 27 total hits in 12 results.

1 2
Cate (search for this): article 13
Substitutes in the Army --Important Habeas Corpus Cate.--An interesting and important habeas, corpus case was tried before Judge Marshall, in the Circuit Court of Lynchburg, last week. We find the following particulars in the Republican; The petitioner, Philip T. Withers, a citizen of Lynchburg, having been arrested by the enrolling officer, Major Charles S. Peyton, as a conscript, claimed his exemption on the ground of having furnished a substitute in Co. it, 11th Va, regiment. The paper produced to establish the claim to substitution was signed by Sparrell L. Weight, 2d Lt. commanding Co. H, 11th Va. regiment, and approved by Kirk Otey, Major commanding 11th Va, regiment. In the return to the writ, Major Peyton alleged that the whole transaction was irregular, illegal, fraudulent and void, and in accordance with the laws and orders on the subject of substitution.--That Sparrell B. Wright, who signed the said paper as 2d Lieut. commanding, and Major Otey, who signed
Philip T. Withers (search for this): article 13
--Important Habeas Corpus Cate.--An interesting and important habeas, corpus case was tried before Judge Marshall, in the Circuit Court of Lynchburg, last week. We find the following particulars in the Republican; The petitioner, Philip T. Withers, a citizen of Lynchburg, having been arrested by the enrolling officer, Major Charles S. Peyton, as a conscript, claimed his exemption on the ground of having furnished a substitute in Co. it, 11th Va, regiment. The paper produced to estabng failed to show that he had ever furnished a substitute who was at any time on duty with the company, or to bring himself within the equity of the law, must be remanded to the custody of the enrolling officer for service in the army, which was accordingly done. The decision is an important one, effecting many others of a similar character. We understand that Lieut. Wright gave a large number of such discharges for substitution. An appeal has been taken by the counsel for Mr. Withers.
Sparrell B. Wright (search for this): article 13
lar, illegal, fraudulent and void, and in accordance with the laws and orders on the subject of substitution.--That Sparrell B. Wright, who signed the said paper as 2d Lieut. commanding, and Major Otey, who signed as Major commanding the 11th Va. regshould have been carried either to the regiment or to a camp of instruction, and there mustered in, and that neither said Wright nor said Otey had any right or authority to receive substitutes in service. A good deal of testimony was introduced in support of the allegations of the return, showing that both Wright and Otey were in Lynchburg at the time of signing the paper and receiving the substitute, and that no such substitute as Wm. Farley, mentioned in the discharge, had ever been on daccordingly done. The decision is an important one, effecting many others of a similar character. We understand that Lieut. Wright gave a large number of such discharges for substitution. An appeal has been taken by the counsel for Mr. Withers
Marshall (search for this): article 13
Substitutes in the Army --Important Habeas Corpus Cate.--An interesting and important habeas, corpus case was tried before Judge Marshall, in the Circuit Court of Lynchburg, last week. We find the following particulars in the Republican; The petitioner, Philip T. Withers, a citizen of Lynchburg, having been arrested by the enrolling officer, Major Charles S. Peyton, as a conscript, claimed his exemption on the ground of having furnished a substitute in Co. it, 11th Va, regiment. Theas an important one upon which a large number of others of a similar character depend, and ably argued for two days by James Garland, Robert Whitehead, and E. D. Christian, Esqs., for the petitioner, and M. II. Opink for the Government. Judge Marshall delivered an able and elaborate opinion in the case on yesterday, discussing all the points in issue. The Judge held that the substitution was illegal, irregular, and void; that the Lieutenant and Major signing were not in command at the tim
Sparrell L. Weight (search for this): article 13
and important habeas, corpus case was tried before Judge Marshall, in the Circuit Court of Lynchburg, last week. We find the following particulars in the Republican; The petitioner, Philip T. Withers, a citizen of Lynchburg, having been arrested by the enrolling officer, Major Charles S. Peyton, as a conscript, claimed his exemption on the ground of having furnished a substitute in Co. it, 11th Va, regiment. The paper produced to establish the claim to substitution was signed by Sparrell L. Weight, 2d Lt. commanding Co. H, 11th Va. regiment, and approved by Kirk Otey, Major commanding 11th Va, regiment. In the return to the writ, Major Peyton alleged that the whole transaction was irregular, illegal, fraudulent and void, and in accordance with the laws and orders on the subject of substitution.--That Sparrell B. Wright, who signed the said paper as 2d Lieut. commanding, and Major Otey, who signed as Major commanding the 11th Va. regiment, were not with their commands at the
William Farley (search for this): article 13
e in the city of Lynchburg, and their commands were with the army of the Potomac. more than one hundred miles distant; and that neither the said Withers nor said Farley, the alleged substitute, were ever with or in any sense members of Co. H, 11th Va. regiment; that the said substitute should have been carried either to the regimof the return, showing that both Wright and Otey were in Lynchburg at the time of signing the paper and receiving the substitute, and that no such substitute as Wm. Farley, mentioned in the discharge, had ever been on daily with the company. Testimony was also introduced to establish the genuineness of the paper upon which the discharge was claimed. A paper was also Introduced, signed by Major Otey, purporting to be a descriptive list of said Farley, and a receipt for him from Col. J. C. Shields, Commandant of Conscripts. The case was fully heard as an important one upon which a large number of others of a similar character depend, and ably argued f
James Garland (search for this): article 13
the discharge, had ever been on daily with the company. Testimony was also introduced to establish the genuineness of the paper upon which the discharge was claimed. A paper was also Introduced, signed by Major Otey, purporting to be a descriptive list of said Farley, and a receipt for him from Col. J. C. Shields, Commandant of Conscripts. The case was fully heard as an important one upon which a large number of others of a similar character depend, and ably argued for two days by James Garland, Robert Whitehead, and E. D. Christian, Esqs., for the petitioner, and M. II. Opink for the Government. Judge Marshall delivered an able and elaborate opinion in the case on yesterday, discussing all the points in issue. The Judge held that the substitution was illegal, irregular, and void; that the Lieutenant and Major signing were not in command at the time of signing, and, under the laws and regulations, had no authority to receive substitutes in the army; that the principal sh
Kirk Otey (search for this): article 13
ight, 2d Lt. commanding Co. H, 11th Va. regiment, and approved by Kirk Otey, Major commanding 11th Va, regiment. In the return to the wrB. Wright, who signed the said paper as 2d Lieut. commanding, and Major Otey, who signed as Major commanding the 11th Va. regiment, were not wuction, and there mustered in, and that neither said Wright nor said Otey had any right or authority to receive substitutes in service. Apport of the allegations of the return, showing that both Wright and Otey were in Lynchburg at the time of signing the paper and receiving thehe discharge was claimed. A paper was also Introduced, signed by Major Otey, purporting to be a descriptive list of said Farley, and a receipor General of the C. S. Army; that the descriptive list signed by Major Otey was inconsistent with the first paper upon which the petitioner claimed his discharge, and that no such man was receipted for by Major Otey, was ever in the possession or under the control of Col. J. C. Shie
Robert Whitehead (search for this): article 13
ad ever been on daily with the company. Testimony was also introduced to establish the genuineness of the paper upon which the discharge was claimed. A paper was also Introduced, signed by Major Otey, purporting to be a descriptive list of said Farley, and a receipt for him from Col. J. C. Shields, Commandant of Conscripts. The case was fully heard as an important one upon which a large number of others of a similar character depend, and ably argued for two days by James Garland, Robert Whitehead, and E. D. Christian, Esqs., for the petitioner, and M. II. Opink for the Government. Judge Marshall delivered an able and elaborate opinion in the case on yesterday, discussing all the points in issue. The Judge held that the substitution was illegal, irregular, and void; that the Lieutenant and Major signing were not in command at the time of signing, and, under the laws and regulations, had no authority to receive substitutes in the army; that the principal should have carried
E. D. Christian (search for this): article 13
with the company. Testimony was also introduced to establish the genuineness of the paper upon which the discharge was claimed. A paper was also Introduced, signed by Major Otey, purporting to be a descriptive list of said Farley, and a receipt for him from Col. J. C. Shields, Commandant of Conscripts. The case was fully heard as an important one upon which a large number of others of a similar character depend, and ably argued for two days by James Garland, Robert Whitehead, and E. D. Christian, Esqs., for the petitioner, and M. II. Opink for the Government. Judge Marshall delivered an able and elaborate opinion in the case on yesterday, discussing all the points in issue. The Judge held that the substitution was illegal, irregular, and void; that the Lieutenant and Major signing were not in command at the time of signing, and, under the laws and regulations, had no authority to receive substitutes in the army; that the principal should have carried his substitute to th
1 2