Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1845-06-13

The plaintiffs testimony tended 10 prove that
the defendants had admitted the lumber had been
added to the pile between the two measurements,
and that at the time Of the second measurement the
defendants forbid the plaintiff from touching the
lumber. There was testimony on both sides as TO
the value of the lumber.
The plaintiff contendcd that by law II was neces.
sary that the lumber should have been fully set
apart by shutdown of the last day of June, and
that as the marking the lumber was not done until
after shutdown, Il was therefore not rendered and
set apart in season-and that If il was set apart in
season, yet that defendants were bound by the
measurement and appraisal Of the three men by
them selected for that purpose, and that the num-
Der Of feet at their measurement, (5,635) al their
appraisal, ($3,92) did not pay the note by about
twenty cents-and that therefore the plaintiff was
entitled to recover the amount due on the note in
cash.
The Court charged the Jury--the defendants
were bound the last day of June 10 set apart suf-
icient lumber of merchan,abc quality to pay the
no,e that whatever might be the law as to the ne.
cessty in cases like this, of making the tender
before sunset, the question did not arise in this
case, for all that necessary 10 make the tender
complete done before sunset, and that the on
y question that remained for the jury 10 ascer
tain whether a sufficient quantity of lumber was at
that time set apart 10 satisfy the note The defend
ants were not bound either TO have the lumber
measured or appraised, and were not bound by the
measurement and appraisal Of the three men by
them selected lf there was lumber enough set
apart for the plaintiff, that was sufficient, and the
issue Is proved The fact that defendants AFTER
wards forbid the plaintiff from touching the lumber,
il proved, is Of no consequence. lflumber enough
rendered. it passed the instant to the plain
tiff, and any after conduct of the defendants could
not alter the rights Of the parties.
The Jury gave a verdict for the defendant.
For plaintiff A. II. Albee, and w. C. Bradley.
For defendants, J. Z. Butler, - Richardson,
and d. Kellogg
In the above the real amount in contest was
about 20 cents The defendants cost, as taxed,
amounts to nearly 500.
Watkins Tudor.
The question of law raised in this case was,
whether an action could be sustained upon a writ.
ten promise TO become responsible for the debt Of
another, made in New Hampshire, both of the par
ties residing there, where the consideration of the
promise did not appear in writing. The promise
was in substance as follows
Mr. Watkins-l will be responsible for Twelve
5000 dollars of Mr. Graves rent.
(Signed) Henry S. TUDOR.
The defendant contended that by the law Of New
Hampshire, the consideration well as the promise
must appear IN writing and tina. this contract, be.
ing made in New Hampshire, must be construed
by the laws OF that State.
The Court said il did not satisfactorily appear that
the law of that State did require the consideration
to be in writing, and they should therefore give the
same construction to the promise would be given
to il in this State-that it was obligatory upon the
party signing it, although the consideration did not
appear.
There are questions of fact in the case that are
TO be tried by jury.
For plaintiff, d. Kellogg. For defendant, w. c.
Bradley and J. Dorr Bradley.