[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 1412. John M. Holt vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim 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, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that John M. Holt, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed February 20, 1888.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 527. Isaac L. Hyatt vs. The United States.]

This case being a claim 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, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Isaac L. Hyatt, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed March 12, 1888.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 390. Julia A. Reed, administratrix et al., vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim 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, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Julia A. Reed, administratrix, the person alleged to have furnished snch supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction. Filed March 12, 1888.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 489. Sarah A. Wallace vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that said Sarah A. Wallace, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed March 19, 1888.

[Court of Claims, Congressional No. 522. Louis Loeb and Henry Loeb vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim 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, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Louis Loeb and Henry Loeb, the persons alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, were loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction,

Filed March 26, 1888,

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 1330. Joseph Bontura, deceased, vs. the United States.]

This case, being a claim 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, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Joseph Bontura (now, May, 1888), deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed May 14, 1888.

[Court of claims. Congressional No. 1067. Jane M. Massengill vs. The United Statos.]

This case, being a claim 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, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Jane M. Massengill, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed May 28, 1888.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 1630. Green L. Bennett vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim 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, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Green L. Bennett, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed June 18, 1888.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 3631. Benjamin F. Hurt vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim 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, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Benjamin F. Hurt, the person alleged to bave furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed April 1, 1889.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 4803. George P. Læbr vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim 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, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that George P. Lohr, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed April 8, 1889.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 2206. William H. Rodgers vs. The United States.] This case, being a claim 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, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that npon the evidence it does not appear that William H. Rodgers, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction,

Filed May 20, 1889,

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 1010. James R. Lee vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim 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, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that James R. Lee, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed May 20, 1889.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 4028. Solomon Gardiner vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim 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, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that said Solomon Gardner, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed May 28, 1889.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 909. James W. Roberts vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim 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, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that said James W. Roberts, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; andthe case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed November 4, 1889.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 2019. William T. Warren vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or farnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that William T. Warren, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed November 4, 1889.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 1822. James Mitchell vs. the United States.]

This case, being a claim 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, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that said James Mitchell, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction,

Filed November 4, 1889,

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 745. Michael Kries vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim 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, the court, on a préliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that said Michael Kries, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed November 11, 1889.

[Court of Claims. Congressionl No. 610. Estate of Walter Shirley vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim 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, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that said Walter Shirley (since deceased), the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction. Filed November 18, 1889.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 4053. Alfred H. Weaver vs. the United States.]

This case, being a claim 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, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Alfred H. Weaver, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction. Filed December 16, 1889.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 2011. Francis A. Ward vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim 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, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Francis A. Ward, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed December 23, 1889.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 4883. Mary F. Lee vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim 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, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Mary F. Lee, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed December 23, 1889.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 2015, William N. Robertson vs. the United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furn shed to the military forces of the United States tes for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that William N. Robertson, the person

alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed January 6, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 4873. Frederick Cook vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim 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, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Frederick Cook, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies, or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed January 6, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 5134. Henry Babb vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim 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, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Henry Babb, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed January 6, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 4507. A. Sheftall, son of Dr. Solomon Sheftall, vs. The United States. J

This case, being a claim 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, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Solomon Sheft all, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed January 13, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 6582. John H. Jentzen, surviving partner of the firm of Jentzen & Oelrich vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that John H. Jentzen and Peter H. Oelrich, the persons alledged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are al feged to have been taken, were loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction. Filed January 20, 1890.

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 6038. Levi Lilenthal vs. The United States.]

This case, being a claim 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, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Levi Lilenthal, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; aud the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction.

Filed January 20, 1890.