The Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1837-1867, 1843-05-09
WASHINGTON COUNTY COURT.

WASHINGTON COUNTY COUkI'
We copy the following from the Montpelier Watch
man of April 2S ..... .....
On Thursday and Friday of last week case was
tried in Washington County Court, which Tor Its nov
city and the position ofthe parties excited great
deal OF iaterest, and it bids fair TO excite still more
for we understand another trial, at least is to be had
It was an action for money had and received and the
parties are both gentlemen Of the legal proiesslono
residing in this county and one in Franklin county,
In this case the principal witness was the father OF
the Young lady, whose charms have provoked con-
test which, for aught we know, may be quite as mem
orabe as the Trojan war, though bloodess and more
brief On his direct testimony to events and cor
respondence, the plaintiff relied; and most thor
ough and cross examination conducted by Mr. Upham
senior, and some other testimony tending to confirm
the defence, the counsel for the defendant were
obliged to rest the case The history is briefly this,
as gathered from the testimony Of the principal wit
ness. For sometime previous to 1889, an intimacy
had grown up between the plaintiff and young lady
ofthis village, and mutual affection was alleged, tho
the parties had not reached the definite point, viz
positive engagement AT this time competitor en-
tered the field-a Lysandcr was found in the person
of the defendant to match this Demetrious; and from
the testimony it would that he almost adopted
part of one orthe identical speeches of Shakespeares
Lysander.
sI am, my lord, as well dervd as he,
AS well possessed; my love is than his;
My fortune every way as fairly rank'd,
Irnot with vantage, as Demetrus'"
He appeared as suitor with the appreciation of the
father-was duly and honoraby informed by the
lady as to her favor to the plaintiff, and nasmuch as
che was not bound by any engagements, he was per-
mitted to try his skill with CuPid's arms, to see
whether he could conquer the old love. For eigh-
teen months he paid his addresses, advanced mon
ey and presents and introduced the lady TO the cir
Gle of his friends and acquainances; but at the ex
piration of that time he informed that first love
was too strong for him. and the lady had concluded
10 dismiss him and marry the paintih-'lhe deien-
dant then addressed the father Of the lady, and as
the witness testified, expressed doubts Of the SINGER
y of the plaintiff and proposed that, merely as test
he (the flther) should require the plantfto depos
ite $3.50 in his hands ;he also sent bill for money ex
pended, to $780, and other items, such as travelling
expenses tme horse hire, and the loss ola colt by
drowning, which he charged would not have occur
red had he been at home attending to his ordinary
busness-in all announcing to $3.50. The father
testlheu mat ne acted as Vi anu
such demanded Of the plaintiff the depostc of $3.50.
Plaintiff refused. Witness urged him, declaring that
il was mere test, and that defendant would not re-
tain dollar ofthe money. Finally plaintiff furnished
the money, protesting that defendant should not have
dollar OF it; witness informed defendant, who or
dered the money to be sent to him, and 1920 was
sent, which defendant retained. Plaintiff married the
lady, and subsequently brought this suit to recover
back the money. The plaintiff claimed that delen-
dant had wrongfully obtained the money! that it was
a mere deposite made under protest, and with the
assurance Of defendants agent that he (defendant)
would not retain the money. On the other hand il
was insisted tina the lady under obligations to
defendant and could not honorably, and would not,
marry plaintiff until these obligations discharg-
ed; that SO it was understood by plaintiff, and that
accordingly defendants bill audited, extraneous
items defendant is great wag, by the way,) dsa.
lowed, and the balance RENTED to him. The court
charged that if this money was morey deposite in
the hands of defendants agent as test OF the palr
pif's sincerity, the plaintiff should recover; but iii
was paid with view to discharge defendant stclaim
or ifthe plaintiff gave this money present eth
father daughter, although protesting that de
PENDANT should have it, and either Of them sent
to defendant, plaintiff should not it, Verde
for the PLAINTIFFS 1920 interest Peck &!Dillnghan
for plaintiff; w. X Upham and VIM. p. Briggs 70
defendant. q.
We omit names we have particular anxiet.
to give the names any greater publicity than the par
ties themselves have done The final result is o
some importance 10 lovers whether married or un
married; they may have to pay the bills of unsucces
full suors; or if these bills paid under cir
cumstanees, it seems, the law may compel REIN
ybursement of the money!
CANADIAN TariG-The duties imposed by tn
Canadian Legislature American products, take Ell
feet the fret Of July. On Wheat she duty Is sew
EN- and half cents per bushel, and On -four eight
cents per barrel. No distinction rs made bctgvee
aour going to England whether manufactured from