FRITTS, Henry J. vs. Wiley H. MONGER - Circuit Court - 1865
Compiled by Robert L. Bailey

After the Civil War, there are several court cases in which former Rebel sympathizers were sued for damages to property and person. These are examples of such cases. As time permits, more of these cases will be transcribed and posted.

Be it remembered that upon the trial of the issue in this case before the Honorable E.T. HALL and a jury of Roane County at the October Term of the Circuit Court for said county, begun and holden on the 1st Monday after the 4th Monday of October 1865, the following proceedings ??? had, to wit,

Martin J. FRITTS, a witness for the plaintiff testified as follows: I am plaintiffs son; was living with plaintiff in the fall of 1861, when a detachment of Rebel soldiers came to his home and demanded two guns; father denied that he had any guns; they then told him that he had guns and that he must produce them, or they would arrest and take him to prison; father still produced no guns; the Rebels then arrested father and started off with him about 12 oclock in the day and held him as a prisoner until about 10 oclock at night. Father then came home; he had but one gun at the time and the next day after his release he and I went and bought one gun and took it and his other gun over to Mr. LACKEY. The Rebel Soldier told plf. that they would hold him as a prisoner untill he surrendered his guns when he delivers the guns he got a recept and he thinks the paper show him is the recept given to the plaintiff - The receipt is in the following words. Witness furthermore stated that one of the Plf. guns was worth $100 and the other $25.

Mary CRANDALL another witness for Plf. said: that deft. was at her house with some Rebel Soldiers; that she was in the door and deft. was upon his horse a short distance off surrounded by soldiers; while thus situated another parcel of soldiers came up with plaintiff as a prisoner; Heard the Rebels ask plf. about his guns; told him he must give them up. - Plf. denied having any guns and deft. said that Plf. had had two guns a short time before that; that he had seen his sons have the guns. If the soldiers asked deft. any thing about the matter, witness did not hear them, and if the deft. said that he did not know what plaintiff had done with his guns, witness did not hear the remark.

George FRITTS an another witness for Plf. said, that the day deft. went to CRANDALLS, a squad of Rebel soldiers had him (the witness) under arrest and they were taking him to the Provost Marshals because he would not give up his gun; they met deft. in the Road; deft. interfered in his behalf; told the soldiers that the witness was a truthful man; that he would go witnesses security, and after some conversation the soldiers released him. About a week afterwards the soldiers returned and took witnesses gun away. The soldiers said after they released witness that deft. should go with and show them around the neighborhood; deft. said he was sick and not able to go; seemed to be scared and very reluctant to go; said if he went they must let him go by home and get his horse(?); they agreed to this and went off; the next day witness saw deft. again; deft. told him that he has gone with the soldiers to CRANDALLS; that he hated very much to to; that he would not have gone for any amount of money if he could have helped it; that while there some soldiers came up with Plf.; that he asked what they had him for; asked if they had him for the same purpose that they had him deft. for; that the soldiers said they had him because he could not give up his guns; and he further said that he had told the soldiers that the plf. had had not guns; that he had seen his sons have them, but that he (deft) did not know what Plf. had done with them. Deft. knew at the time he offered to go witnesses security that witness was a union man. Everybody that knew me knew this. Everybody that knew we knew this. The soldiers made me report guns in the neighborhood and I reported my brothers gun about one half mile off. Deft. was not connected with the Rebel army at the time; he was afterwards conscripted into the Rebel army as I understood.

A.H. CRANDALL another witness for Plf. said, that he knew Plfs. guns which were taken; if they had belonged to him, the witnesses, he would not have had them taken at that time for $100. Deft. was a witness understood a rebel from the beginning; witness infered that he was a Rebel from Conversations which he had had with the Plf. on the Subject. This evidence in regard to deft. being a Rebel was objected to by defts. counsel and admitted by the Court.

J.A.J. FOUTE a witness for the deft. said that he was a brother-in-law of defts.; was familiar with him; knows that deft. voted against Convention in February 1861; thinks he was sick(?) in June and August following and that for this reason he did not vote in June and August Elections. He uniformly(?) expressed himself to witness as appeared to ??? and seperation. He was an original democrat and voted for BRECKENBRIDGE in 1860; could hear of his talking formerly of SECEPIN(?) to others, but he always told witness that he was opposed to the rebellion and that he would never fire a gun for them; that they might conscript and put him in the army, but that he never would never fire a gun for them.

George CROWDER another witness for deft. said, that he heard Saml. SAFFLE tell the Rebels in the morning before they took plaintiff prisoner, that Plf. had his gun; to go and get them; witness saw the soldiers start off saying that they would have the guns and if they could not get the guns they would take him; heard that they did take him in that day; this was in the fall of 1861; thinks it was in October - SAFFLE is dead; He was in the Rebel army; the Rebels asked witness if Plf. has guns; witness told them he did not know; that they must ask SAFFLE; he was in the habit of giving to Plfs. and knew more about than this witness did .