What it was, was whiskey

Elias Miller liked his whiskey, and for good reason.

In 1863, Miller filed a law suit claiming theft of whisky in Clarksville, but not until a second suit 14 months later did Miller spell out reasons his whiskey was so valuable.

Miller filed his first suit in December of that pivotal year of Southern defense against Northern aggression. With the fall of Vicksburg and Robert E. Lee’s defeat at Gettysburg only six months past, a suit concerning whiskey might seem paltry. Soldiers in blue and soldiers in gray were dying by the thousands, and Miller was worried about a barrel of whiskey.

At the end of that December, in what must have been a cold month for Texas secessionists, Miller accused J.N. Nelson of taking a barrel of valuable spirit.

In petition to Sixth District Court, Miller noted he was a resident of Red River County, while Nelson “is a resident of _______ county, but who is now in the county of Red River.” Accusations and declarations filed long ago often lacked specific locations and dates.

Miller claims to be “owner of a certain barrel of whiskey of the value of sixteen hundred dollars.” Miller’s petition does not further identify the certain barrel of whiskey, nor do papers on file speak of the barrel’s volume. Unless the barrel was of extremely large volume, $1,600 seems steep. But, in the third year of the war, inflation had already lessened the value of any money that was not gold or silver.

Miller goes on to say “that upon the 29th day of December 1863 the said Nelson with force of arms seized and took … the said barrel of whiskey … and refuses to deliver the same …”

“Whereupon,” the petition states, “he (Miller) sues and prays that the defendant be cited …”

Miller’s biggest concern, though, was this: “(P)etitioner further alleges that he fears the defendant will waste the said whiskey – or move the same out of the county so that the same will be lost to petitioner.”

One wonders: How would Nelson waste the said whiskey?

In the end, what was wasted was Miller’s time and his legal expense. Written in pencil on the back of the petition is one word: “Dismissed.”

Miller’s second suit over whiskey gives more insight into his concern for spirituous and vigorous liquors.

On Feb. 13, 1865, Miller noted to district court that he “is the owner of a certain house in Clarksville where he is engaged in trade or business as retailer of spirituous … liquors.” As such a retailer, Miller “pays to the State of Texas heavy license tax and to the Confederate States the occupational taxes established by authority.”

As barkeep or saloon owner or peddler of whiskey, Miller might be expected to be concerned about the whereabouts of his filled barrels.

In that second suit, Miller alleges: “On or about the __ day of February 1865 defendants (L.D. Van Dyke and J.H. Thompson) assisted by certain armed men under their control did with force of arms enter the said house of plaintiff and did seize and take away a certain barrel with faucets and appurtenances attached of the value of one hundred dollars and five gallons of whiskey extra of the value of seven hundred fifty dollars.”

As in his suit 14 months before, Miller claimed he had demanded return of the whiskey, but the defendants refused. Loss of barrel with faucets and appurtenances, Miller said, “prevented petitioner from pursuing his legitimate business” and had cost him $1,000 in sales.

That same day, the district judge issued a sequestration order. Written on the back of the order is: “Executed this writ by levying on 1 barrel and 5 gal whiskey … pointed out to me by Elias Miller, done in the presence of W.C. Phillips and John Dickson. J.M. Stanley Shrff RRC.”

Since Miller got his whiskey and appurtenances returned, the case did not go to court.