Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1845-02-28


erty to puer, but on the contrary, he held the re-
cent even at the time Of the trial II he had nban
doned the taking and given up the receipt, another
question would have arisen. Judgment Of County
Court is affirmed.
Bennett, Justice, dissented upon the last point.
The property went into Pufer's hands, who is the
real plaintiff, and real holder and the evidence Of
fered was competent in mitigation Pufier is the
receipier and assignee and is in way responsible
to the officer, as that responsibility depends upon
the officers responsibility over TO the creditor or
debtor, and here the attachment created no lien.
Joseph s! French, vs. Jesse Wilkins. This was
a writ ofreview and the question in relation to
the computation of time. The judgment in the
original suit was rendered May 9th, 1910. Writ
of review dated May 9th, 1913. If in the compuia-
ton of time the day of the rendition Of judgment is
excluded, the three years allowed for bringing
suit of review had not expired, If included il had
expired The County Court decided that the writ
was brought in time, and that the day of Judgment
was to be excluded and the defendant excepted.
The case was argued for the plaintiff by c. l.
Walker, for the defendant by Royal Tyler.
Hebard, Justice. II is admitted by the counsel
upon both sides that the authorities are at variance,
and are not TO be reconced, and that in many Of
the cases the day has been included or excluded as
the equity Of each case indicated. We think how
that this question has received practical con-
struclion in this State in computing time upon the
service Of wrs, and the time that property attached
is held upon the execution after judgment, and that
construction is in favor of exclusion.
II is also a settled rule Of law that there is no
fraction Of day, consequently the day and the act
are coextensive, and the time of the rendition of
judgment is the day of the rendentioD, and conse-
quenty in counting from or 'after the rendition,
the day is excluded.
The counsel foI the plaintiff has cited numerous
authorities in favor of exclusion, and although
Of the cases cited by the defendant strong cases.
yet they do not appear to have been settled by any
principle and we think the weight of authorities in
favor Of exclusion. Judgment affirmed.
Steen a. Farr, Assgnees of d. b. Thompson, vs.
Roger wadswor,h. This was an action for
and occupation. Judgment was rendered for the
plaintiffs by the County Court on the report of a
referee, and exceptions were taken by defendant.
II was contended for the defendant that the
plaintiffs had no title to the premises upon which
the rent accrued, as the assignment by which they
claimed was void.
y. 1. walker Tor plaintihs IL. Kellogg Tor defend
ant. Bennett, Justice. 1t does appear from the
report of the referee that be intended decide ac-
cordng to law, and therefore if he decided other
wise, his decision cannot be revised. But fi were
otherwise, in action for and occupation, a
tenant cannot dispute the title Of his landlord nor
Of his assignee, even should the assignment be void
Divorces. The following persons were divorced,
and all upon the application Of the husband
Simon and Laura Wood; George w. and Sally
Sherwin; Absalom aud Lucy Pike; Hiram and
Emeline Dennison.
Two were granted for wilful deserton, one for
cruel severity, and one for adultery.
There was an application in behalfof Levi Russell
by his next friend Laban Jones, to annul the mar
riage of said Russell with Phebe ID. Russell upon
the ground Of the mental incapacity of said Levi
There much curious testimony, and as the
case involves the question what degree Of mental
capacity is requisite to the making Of the marriage
contract, is of deep interest The Court took
the papers with them. When the decision is made
we will endeavor 10 present synopsis of the whole
case to our readers.