Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1844-11-29
COURT RECORD.

Elliot and Wheelock, Associates. Several Ju-
ry trials OF some interest have taken place,
some Of which we Aotice.
Orrin Shelly VS.. LevereH HaskeH-As-
sumpsit on note. 1t appeared from the plead
ings and evidence, that in the Spring OF 1871,
the defendant was owing TO one Ann Ranstead
about $S7, for which she held his note. Ann
Ranstead died, and her father, Rufus Ranstead,
was her heir-at-law. She requested, before her
death, that the defendants note should be Civ
en- to her sister, the wife of the plaintiff. After
her decease, her father took the note to the de-
lendant and requested that he wonld give a
new note, giving as reasons that the note was
Mrs Shelly's, and that unless it was done, he,
the defendant, might be trusteed as the debtor
of the father. Defendant complied, and gave
the note now sued, payable to Freeman Ran
stead, son of Rufus, and brother 10 plaintiffs
wife, for $S7 so, dated May 81, 1871. Free
man Ranstead endorsed the note to the plain
tiff Subsequently the defendant was served
with process as trustee of Rufus Ranstead, "a
Their and heir-at-aw of Ann, and appeared and
disclosed the facts in relation TO the exchange
Of notes, but did not disclose that he had been
notified that the note was Mrs Shelly's. On
this disclosure he was adludged trustee, and he
now plead the judgment against him in that ac-
ton as bar to the present. The plaintiff re-
piled that that judgment was obtained by the
fraud of the defendant, upon which issue was
joined and the parties came to trial.
The Court charged the Jury that the note, in
fact, did belong TO the plaintiffs wife, and that
if the defendant had notice of that fact, and in
the trustee process did not disclose il, by means
of which judgment was rendered against him
as trustee, that judgment furnished no defence
to the present action. The defendants coun-
sci requested the Court to charge the Jury that
unless there was fraud on the part of the de-
PENDANT in making the disclosure, the judgment
thereon would protect him, but the Court de-
cned so to charge. Verdict for plaintiff for
the amount of the note and interest.
For plaintiff, Smith g. -. For defendant,
Stoughton & Person.
Gates Perry, vs. Chandler Pratt, Solomon
Ne,ceH, and Nathan Derter.--This case is
happy illustration of the laws delay and unccr-
tainty. Some five or six years since, one
Wales A. Bridges put into the hands of Mar
shall Newton, deputy of the plaintiff, who
was then Sheriff, writ vs. Nathan Dexter,
upon which, together with other property, sew
en- cows were attached. These cows were put
into the care OF one Underwood, as bailee of
the attaching officer, and were kept in his pas
ture. The cows either got out of their own
accord or were driven out of this pasture, and
went back 10 the residence and into the possess
sion of said Nathan Dexter, and the same al
! ternoon were attached as his property by Chan
dler Pratt as officer, aided by the other defend
ants, on writ in favor of the town of w ards
boro vs.. N. Dexter. Bridges obtained judg-
ment against Dexter, and in the name of the
plaintiff brought an action Of trespass against
the defendants for taking the cows from his
possession, but at The trial, in consequence of
the opinion given by the presiding Judge, that
the attaching officer was in any event absolutely
responsible for all property attached, that ac-
ton was discontinued and one was commenced
by Bridges against the plaintiff Tor the cows at
lached by hisdeputy, Newton. At the trial at
the County Court, judgment was obtained
against the plaintiff for the value of the cows
the Court not permitting the officer to prove
that the cows escaped without any negligence
on the part of himself or his baiIee, or that they
were driven away by Nathan Dexter.
Exceptions were taken, and the case went
to the Supreme Court, where il was decided
that the Sheriff was only bound to the exercise
OF ordinary care in keeping attached property,
and that the Court erred in rejecting the test-
mony, and the case was sent back to the Coun-
ty Court for new trial. After this decision, the
present action was commenced. This was the
second trial. The plaintiff proved the attach
ment by Newton, and the subsequent taking by
the defendants. The defence rested upon the
been exercised in keeping the cows after the
attachment by Newton, and that for want of
that care and diligence they had strayed back
into the possession Of the original owner, Ma
than Dexter, where they attached them right
fully, upon certain writs upon which judgments
were subsequently obtained, and the cows were
sold on the executions. Much testimony was
introduced tending to prove that The pasture
where the cows were kept was surrounded by
very poor fence that offered very slight re-
sistance to their escape. On the other hand,
there was testimony tending to prove that the
cows were turned out Of the pasture by Nathan
Dexter, who procured the subsequent attach
ment TO be made.
The Court charged the Jury that if they
found that there had been want of ordinary
care and diligence 10 keeping the cows, and in
consequence thereof they had gone back into
the possession of Nathan Dexter, then the