Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1843-04-21
WASHINGTON COUNTY COURT.

Tho April term commenced on Tuesday Of last
week, Judge Hebard presiding, and Judges Saw
yer aud Sampson assistants, and is still in session
Among the cases already decided, the following
have excited the most INTEREST,"
.4icdn Taylor (of Bradford Us. Ira Day. Brought
against Day, us stage proprietor, for injuries sus-
tanned by plaintiffs daughters, by the overIurnng
Of coach eight years ago, near this village. Yer
diet for the plaintiff, S4l8 damages aud his costs
At the las, term the plaintiff recovered o smaller
sum and tue defendant reviewed o. II. Smith
and AzoI SpaIding Tor plaintiff; VIM. Upham and
l.. b. Peck for defendants.
Luciws Ldsoion Us. Nm. CardelL SANDER the
defendant having charged the plaintiff with steal
ing hive of honey The defendant attempted
10 prove that the charge was true Verdict for
the plaintiff, S94 GO damages and his COSTS Less
damages given at the last term. q. III. Smith apd
l.. B. Peck Tor plaintiff; Paul Dillingham; aud
WIN. Upham Ter defendant.
Ira. 5. Tom u.s. Crane. SIauder cnse, growing
cut OF the somewhat celebrated Berlin Pond muir
der story, which in 1910 created much excitement
in this vicinity, enlisted inquiries by the Gov
ernors of Ohio aud Vermont and ended in an in
yes!igation showing that there was no grounds TO
suspect Il murder had heen committed, save the
unsupported declarations OF Crpne, the defendant
in this case. On that investigation he declared
that the original story was a he, and that he had
subsequently attempted TO sustain the Nory Ivy adj
ditiopa lies. Crane had implicated the plaintiff
one OF the alledged murdrrers, and Tor that this
action was brought. The defendants counsel ar
uipI tot Tho sln t,e additionally nrOvpl
that if proved, Ihe whole story was fhnisy us
to produce no injury to the plaintiff and in fur
Their mitigation OF damages urged that this story
was the foolish freak OF boy, who has already
suffered much for his folly, and is ROW unable 10
pay any very considerable amount OF damages
Verde. for the plaintiff, 1894 rs damages and his
costs. II. w. llealon aud VIM. Upham for plaiu-
uff; l.. b. Peck for defendant
ZIP. Miller rs Ozro Hwibwi. Suuder, charg-
ing that the defendant had said that plaintiff was
accessory to the murder OF his laiher in law, the
late Jonathan Arms. In this case there was strict
ly no defence. The counsel for the defendant,
however, strongly and lngeniously argued IN mt
igaiion oil damages tint 40 actual injury had been
done to Col. Miller-by this awiu accusation, made
us they urged, in the course of domestic difficult
ties of an extraordinary character between the
defendant and his WIFE They therefore insisted
that q verdict against the defendant, with nominal
damages, was all the pIainufF ought TO ask. Yer
dict for the plaintiff 1919 damages and his COSTS
l.. b. Peck and VIM. Upbam Tor plaintiff; VIM.
X. Uphem and Paul Dillingham; for Defendant.
Chaplin Keith Us. Tracy and Convtrse. The de-
PENDANTS are attorneys at Woodstock and in 1888
or 9 gave their receipt for note of $500 against
Thomas Emerson, to he sued if not settled by
Emerson" The note was not s,ied and the plain.
tiff claimed 10 recover of defendants on the ground
of official negligence. For the defence neg gence
was denied, and testimony was put in TO show thar
Emerson had no visible property which could be
reached and that the plaintiff had advised the de-
PENDANTS TO do as vel as they could with The note
subsequent to the date Of the receipt. Emerson
absconded in January l842. Various facts aud
common reports were elected in testimony about
Emerson's affairs but as we heard but part OF the
testimony and none OF the argument we will not
hazard an attempt to stale more particularly about
This case. The court, we understand, charged
that defendants were entitled to n reasonable time
u proceed with the note, ana that they were re
leased from the receipt if The plaintiff interfered
subsequent to its date Verdict for plaintiff, $40
46-being, we suppose, the amount due on the
note with interest Kinsu.an and VIM. Uphaln
for plaintiff; Dillingham; and Peck for defendants.
This is the first appearance here of Mr. Hebard
MS Judge, aud we are glad to say that he acquits
himself with credit, so far a more Than usually
close attendance upon court enables us TO learn
in the estimation of all.