Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

CONGRESS

WM. BROWN.
[To accompany bill H. R. No. 623.]

JANUARY 5, 1855.

Mr. HENDRICKS, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, made the

following

REPORT. The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the petition of

William Brown, of the county of Green and State of Tennessee, and the evidence in support thereof, report:

That the said petitioner was a private in the company commanded by Captain Joseph Hall, in the 4th regiment East Tennessee militia, commanded by Colonel Bayless, in the war of 1812; that during the winter of 1814-'15, he served in said company in the States of Tennessee and Alabama; that he endured great fatigue and exposure, in consequence of which he became disabled with rheumatism, from which he has not at any time since been free, and by which he is now three-fourths disabled. The committee report a bill for his relief.

2d Session. S

No. 16.

JAMES MCINTIRE.
[To accompany bill H. R. No. 624.]

JANUARY 5, 1855.

Mr. HENDRICKS, from the Committee on Invalid Pensions, made the

following

REPORT

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the petition of James McIntire, of the county of Franklin and State of Virginia, report:

That the said petitioner alleges that he served in the 5th regiment United States infantry, from the 4th day of May, 1812, until the 27th of October, 1814, at which time he was honorably discharged on account of severe rupture, which rupture, he says, was caused by the heavy service required of him in the line of his duty; that he was thereby permanently disabled; and that he is now disabled from maintaining himself by labor. The declaration of the petitioner, setting forth these facts, is made under oath. The committee find the service of the petitioner established by the rolls of his company; and that, on the 24th of October, 1814, before the expiration of his term of service, he was honorably discharged "on account of rupture.” William Wingfield, whu entered the service at the same time and in the same company with the petitioner, and served in the same company until June, 1814, testifies “that the petitioner was an able-bodied man, active and very stout, and willing to do any duty imposed upon him, and if extra duty was to be performed he was generally selected; and that, when he left the army in June, 1814, the petitioner remained, and that the petitioner was not then ruptured; that he served in the same company with petitioner, and frequently bathed with him, and would have known if he were so injured; and that he is certain he was not injured when the deponent left the army.” The petitioner having been sound and active in June, and in October, 1814, having been discharged, as the rolls show, “ on account of rupture," the committee believe that between those months the petitioner received the injury, whilst in the service. It appears that he was a superior soldier; and the committee do not doubt that the injury was received whilst he was in the line of his duty. Two physicians, of high standing in their profession, testify that the rupture is of long standing and produces total disability. The committee report a bill for the relief of the pe

titioner.

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinua »