Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1844-06-21
HAMPDEN co. COMMON PLEAS MASS.

couple of cases were tried at this Court last
week, that of some interest to our readers, and
we give brief notice of them.
Charles Stedrns rs. Samuel b. Purple
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who
resides in Springfield, against the defendant of
Northfeld for maliciousy sueing the plaintiff upon
a note before it was due, thereby causing him
great injury by the attachment of his property and
affecting his credit. The proof was, the defendant
held note against the plaintiff for 1856, made pay
able by its terms April LIST, S42-that on that day.
hearing some rumors affecting the credit of the
plaintiifr and having demanded payment and been
refused, he caused the note TO be sued in Vernon,
in this State, and large quantity of timber TO be
attached-and il commended by the plaintiff
that sach paper was by the laws of Massachusetts,
entitled TO three days grace and therefore not
then due, and that sueing note before it due,
such evidence of malice entitled the plain
tiff TO recover.
The defendant contended that as the laws of
Vermont did not recognize days of grace upon such
kind paper, the defendant was justified in sueing
in that State, and that at any rate there was no
malice proved, the action could not be maintained,
that an innocent mistake in the time of commence
ing suit did not afford presumption of malice.
Judge Allen charged the jury that the note
was made in Massachusetts, was payable there and
the parties to it resided there they were bound TO
recognize the days Of grace of that Stae--but that
commencing suit demand before il was due,
did not of itself necessarily furnish sufficient evil
dence of malice TO sustain an action of this kind
that the malice question for the jury-f they
believed the defendant kne,o when he commenced
his action that the note was not due and his object
to harrass the plaintiff, they would find for
the plaintiff otherwise for the defendant.
The jury found for the defendant
Charles Siearns rs. Jarvis F. Burro,cs
This was an action brought against the defend
ant for excessive attachment in serving the writ
Of Purple VS.. Stearns. The proof that the
nght7of the LIST day of April, A. d. 1S42, the writ
put into Burrows hands Constable in Yer
non, and he served it by attaching all the timber of
the plaintiff in said town, and filing a copy of the
writ with the town clerk, and that at the time the
writ was put into his bands, it said that there
might be other attachments and claims upon the
timber.
1t appeared that the plaintiff had three distinct
parcels of timber, either one of which would have
been ample security for the which he d.
rected to attach-$l S0-and that in consequence of
this excessive attachment he delayed in rafting
his timber, and his men for two days
without employment, for which he claimed dam
age. There proof that the defendant knew
how much timber there was, or what its value was,
that it was in distinct parcels, and two days af
Ger the attachment, when the defendant ascertaned
that he had attached more than necessary, he
released two of the parcels
The defendant offered evidence to prove that in
Vermont twas established usage, that when prop
erty of this character attached by filing copy
of the writ in the clerks office, that all of the par
ticular kind of property that the debtor had was
attached, without regard to the amount of property
or size of the debt, which evidence was rejected by
the Court.
The plaintiff s counsel contended that the Excess
sive attachment furnished good ground for this ac
ton, and that the ignorance of the officer of the
amount, value and location of the timber was no
excuse, that officer was bound to know the stu
alton of the property, and only TO attach reasona-
BILE amount.
1t was commended for the defendant that the writ
being handed to him in the night, he was bound to
serve it Immediately omit il at his perii-that
under the circumstances in the night time II was
impossible to ascertain the amount, value, or oca
ton of the timber, and that his only safe course
was to attach it ALL and the suggestions made to
him that there might be other attachments and
claims of uncertain amount, made it necessary that
he should have attached it ALL even had he known
the amount
Judge Allen in charging the jury said that an Of
cer in attaching this kind of property where 1t was
done by filing copy of the writ instead of taking
actual possession would be justified in attaching all
that constituted distinct parcel, without reference
to the amount, as the very object of the Statute
authorizing this mode Of attachment, was to pre-
vent the necessity Of removal. He said the ques-
ton in the present whether the defend
ant, in making the attachment, acted reasonably,
and in coming to a conclusion, they must take in
70 consideration the circumstances under which he
acted, the suggestions he had heard in regard to
other claims and the fact that the attachment was
made in the night when it was impossible to ascer-
tain the amount or situation Of the timber If call
ed upon as the defendant was TO act promptly, he
had acted as a reasonable man, they would hnd a
verdict for him, otherwise for the plaintiff. Yer
dict for the defendant. Chapman and Ashmun for
plaintf-G. T. Davis and c. 1. Walker for defen-
dants.
CoNGREssIoNAL NoMiNATIoSs-The democrats
in New Hampshire have nominated for Congress
the following ticket
u ID II.Ix