The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1844-12-05

Law cases just disposed Of, are reported.
| lnIuhmg Some u the readers of the Voice
might wish 70 know how 10 avoid such
'0leakers,' cOLc uJed 10 Insert lbem,-
Read The Repors, wAo please, and See
whether you viii not consider /: worth
9ue.nlns TO know how 10 kee at proper
distance iron such 'snugo' Ia Lar!
COURT RECORD.
| The Nuveu. Der tenn vi the Windham
County Court commenced 90 The 10Th
iusl, CAiel Justice Williams preiiilnp,
assIst,d by judges Euot and " heciock,
Associates. Several Jury Trials OF some
interest have taken place, sumo OF which
we snail nO.lcs.
Of1a~ Shelly vs. LecereH Haskell As.
sump>H on noe. /; appeared from the
piehui"Ss thd evidence, mat IN Tic Spring
vi le4l. the deienddnl Was OWING 10 one
| Ann RanSie0I uUOut S37, ior which she
held h,s noe. Ana Runotead diul, and
her ia'ner, Rufus Ran>tead, was her heirs
t>iaW. she requested, before .Ier death.
That tie tt!enual.t's note should he given
TO her sister, Tie Nllc U. the p.a!nlltf AT.
;er her decease, her father took he note %
the de!erdant aud requested thai he would
9i7e new note, giNng as reasons that tho
noe was MIS-. Sicily 5 and hat uuirss il
Was done, he, the delcudunt, might bs
fueletd as Ike debtor Of ihe father. De.
fendant complied, AID gave Vie noe now
sued, payable 10 FleeMuu Rans,ead, sun
OF Rotus, aud brother 10 p!amritf', wife.
Tor S37 80, dar,d May Il, lS4I. Fees
uIan RlnSte0d embossed The no.e IL lhc
pt"l"'iii. Subsequently the dt irudanl was
WdS served win process as trustee OF Ru-
I"s Rhns'eaI, ialIer aud heir-al.lar of
Ann, and apGraltd aud disclosed The facts
Ia RELATION 10 ,at eAchA, s. Of ctes, tut did
act disclose that he aau UJen noti6 q hat
the note was Mrs. Suei!y's. GA .hIs dis.
ttospfe he WIS anJGGgcd trU.er ana se
no" plead The Judgment against him IN
tnat aclou as ID lar 10 he present. Ihe
plaintiff 'tPhed 'ha! that judgment. was
ooiulncd b. he fraud Vi lie uete lJabt,uo
on "h'th issue was jolLea, AMI the part.es
came 10 trial,
Tue CCul charged The Jury ina, The
note, In TACT, did belong 10 the pla;nlif's
"nt, "hu ma! II The deiehdaul had nctlce
VI that tact, and Ia The trustee Process aid
not d'sttose 1t, by Means of which udc-
Lent YVES FtndeFtt against him as Trustee.
hat Judgment tvrnlshed no defence 10 tho
presenl action. lac defendants counsel
requested the Court TO charge The Jurv
that unless there was JraUd on The Dart Of
he defeud1nt in mailing The disclosure.
ne Jud9men! thereon would protect him,
bat the Court declined so 10 Charge. Yer.
lict Tor pIalnUtl Tor the amount Of The note
and interest.
For plaintiff, Smith & --. For de-
'endan, SsoughtoL & Person.
Coles Perry, vs.. Chandler Pratt, Sol.
'm0@ Nc20etl, and Nathan Dex!e7.-Tbls
.ase Is harpy Illustration OF The laws de.
ty ana uncertainty. Some five or six
years since, rne Wales A Bridges Pal in.
u The hands OF Marshall Newton, deuu-
y o! the painIh, who was then Sheriff, a
" rlt VS.. Nathan Dexter, upon winch, 10
5ether with other property, seven COWS
we've attached. These COWS were put in.
u the care Of one Underwood as la.lee of
he attaching officer, aud were kept in his
'as'uie' The cows either got our Of their
'"n accord or were driven out OF his o,s.
ore, and went back 10 the residence and
"to Inc osSessIon OF said Nathan Dexter
ma the same oternoon were attached as
lis property by Chandler Pratt as officer,
ldt" by The other defendants, en- ii WI. in
lvor OF the town OF WaId>boro vs.. N.
O'X'ef' ErdgeS obaln,G judgment
gaInS' Dexter, aud in The name OF ,ae
'ld'"Uif brought an action OF tfesra;s
saIns' the defendants for taking he cows
rom his possession, but at the lla, in con-
tquence Of The opinion given by The pre-
ldhg Judge, thai lie attaching fictr was
a any event absolutely responsible for all
roperty attached, that ac;ion was discun>
Eued aud ore was commenced by Bridges
gdinsl the plaintiff for the cows attached
y his dep0ty, Newton. AT the trIal at
le County Count, judgment was obtained
gHnsl HE pIaiuuti' Tor the value Of The
oWs-the Court not permitting be officer
prove that the cows escaped without
ny negligence Oh the part of AimseIfor
IS balee, or that they were driven awav
y Nathan Dexter.
Exceptions were taken. and the cosa
ent to The Supreme Court, where II was
coded that the Sheriff was only bound 10
e exercise OF ordinary care in keepinp
lached property, and that the Court err
IN rejecting the testimony. and tho cnsa