Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1843-03-24
Brattleboro, March 90.

Humor and Shretcdness.-W have not
lately, says the n. Y. Express, met more gen.
ulne illustrations of the blended humor and
shrewdness which are so often elements Of
lush character, than are found in the testimo-
NY of Mr. Petrick Scott slep-laiher of Eugene
sullivan, Gone of the apprentices on hoard the
Sumcrs) who was examined as witness be-
lore Judge lngraham:
What was The name of your wife before YOU
married! A. can't tell. Q. was she Wild
ow' A. She said so. q. What was the name
OF her hrst husbaud' A. believe il was Eu-
gene Sullivan, because my wife passed By the
name Of Caharine Sullivan before | married
her q. How many children had your wife
before she was marricd' A. How can tell.
a. How many did you know Of! A. There
were two boys living with her when married
her z. Were they not her childreni A.
That's more than can tell. O. Was Eugene
Sullivan one of ihem' A. Yes. @. Do YOU
recollect that he left your house and went TO
sea! a. No. q. Then YOU must recnlect
hls leaving il! A. did not say that did not
recollect his leaving the house, but don't rec
olleci his going to sea, for recollect nothing
about il. ! can't tell where he went to, for |
did not see him going To sea. @. Is possible
that II one of the inmates of your house, Your
son or wife, for example, left your house and
went to sea, that you would not know of IL
A. How could tell that my wife went to sea,
unless she told me so when She come back. and
she never told me any such thing. O. But
you would miss her out OF the house? A. OF
course wOuld-but could not tell hy missing
her out OF the house, that she was at sea q.
Did she ever tell YOU that Eugene Sullivan
was at seai A. No. O. Where is your wife
now' A. How can tell. q. When did you
see her lust' A. This morning. @. Wherei
A. In my own house. q. And yet you say
you could not tell where she traS? A. No,
SAID no such thng-l said ! could not tell
where she is, for although she was in my house
this morning she may not be there now.
Decision by The Supreme Court, on Certif-
Gates of jail Commissioners. the Nov.
term OF the County Court, Holbrook, Bow
man X Co. of Boston, brought suit against
Alon2o Pierce and sureties on a Jail bond. 1t
was shown on the Trial that the Jail commits
sloners for this county had administered TO
Pierce the poor debtors oath required by the
Revised Statutes, but in their certificate Of dis
charge, certified that they had administered the
oath which was required by the old repealed
statute. The county court ruled that this was
a sufficient discharge and no breach of The
bond and that defendants recover their cost,
upon the second plea in bar setting forth the
above facts. Whereupon exceptions were Ia
Ken by The plaintiffs, and the case passed TO The
Supreme Court for trial at the present March
Term, and upon argument the Court reversed
the decision below. There were other CUES
llons IN the case, such as variance in the plead
ings, but we believe this was substantially The
decision of the Court. At the same term Of
the supreme Court, the defendants petiliOncd
Tor mandamns, directing the Jail commission
nicd.
We understand that the commissioners IN
other counties are still using the old certificates
II SO, il is time that they understand the prob
able result to sureties on Jail bonds. uontPel-
Ter Watchman.
, @oe@'ng .4ecidcm Alfred, son of Mr. Samuel