Litchfield enquirer., 1845-08-28
GuDeriOr Court.


 should think, to meet with general appreciation. |,
 Superior Court.
 The following cases have been disposed of at tho present term of this Court:
 Joseph Brotcn vs. John D. .IohnsOn.-This wal an action for services in attempting to transport large iron shaft from Mattawan, to the defendant: works in Waterbury. It was in evidence, that the defendant hired the plaintiff to transport the shaf in question, for the sum of S70-tbat the plaintiff started from his residence in Washington, in Feb ruary, 1s41, with two yoke of oxen and pair o horses, with two OK sleds Soon after he left, Il began thawng, and continued to do so, until after he had loaded the shaft, weighing about five tons and returned with it to Dover. In consequence ol the thaw continuing, he left his seds there, and returned 10 Washington, and procured cast wheels and then loaded the shaft upon them, and with great trouble and expense in hiring additional help conveyed it as far New Preston, where he left for the period of fourteen days, owing to the bad state of the travelling. The defendant, hear ing that the shaft was in New Preston, sent his own hands with large number of teams, and with great difficulty and expense of about $40, sue. ceeded in transporting it to Waterbury. The plain tiff brought this suit for the services he rendered up to the time he brought the shaft to Waterbury Verdict for the plaintiff to recover $55. Counsel for the plaintif-seymour and Sanford.-For de. ] fendant-Church and Blackman.
 John Hanchett vs. z. ". BisseN, &5c-Acr1oN ON NoTE.-Defence-that at the time the note was given, 1t was given to settle a claim one c. P had upon one of the defendants-that F. c. moi being present, it was agreed that the note should remain in the hands of c. F. S., Esq.-that the plaintiff should communicate the terms of sucf P. C., if he coud-if not. to procure hls sanction to the settlement then arranged on which event, the note was to be delivered to the plaintiff This arrangement was reduced to writing by c. r. S., and delivered by him to defendant, as memoran- dunn ofthe understanding of the parties. Ephraim by the direction of the plaintiff, communicated with c. F., and obtained his sanction to such ar- engagement, which sanction he communicated to the defendants, and the plaintiff thereupon de- manded payment of the note; which being refus- ed, brought this suit It was claimed, that as the plaintiff was constituted the agent to communi- cate. and finally close the settlement with P. C., he would not delegate this authority to E. H. Consequently, the condition upon which tho note was to become efectual, had not nappened-and so, no right of recovery The plaintiff in answer, claimed, that Ephraim was really the individual intended, instead of John, whose name was by mis- take, inserted in the writing-that he discharged the business confded to him, honestly and fairly and with his proceedings, the defendants at the time were entirely satisfied and the Jury, believ- ing this claim to be true, rendered verdict for the plaintiff, for the amount due on note, and costs Counsel for plaintlff-Church and Sedg- wick-For defendant, Sterling and Seymour.
 Willard S. Wetna0re vs. Green Woods Turn pike Company.-Action for injury sustained by plaintiff, in being thrown from an embankment on the road into Mad River in Winsted, during the winter of 1s41. For the defence, it was claimed that the horse of the defendant was vicious and unmanageable; and that in consequence of the un. skilful and furious driving of the defendant, he was preciptated in the river. principal claim on the part of the plaintiff for injuries innict- ed upon the wife of the witness, who was, as the plaintiff claimed, in delicate situation, and sus- tained serious injury. in consequence of her plunge into the 1n. A great mass of evidence. on the part of..~eacal gentlemen and others, was in- trodnced on this subject on both sides, and result. ed in verdict for the plaintiff, to recover three hundred and fifty dollars Counsel for the plain. tiff-Smith and Hall For the defendant, Church and Holabird. b.l .-.-r . t..-au., .seg-
 Hilamon Fyler and another vs. Charles Page This was an action for fraudulent warranty of 2 horse, in which the plaintiffs claimed, that the de- fendant did. in May. 1s41, by fraudulent represen tations, induce the plaintiffs to exchange horse: with the defendant, and also to pay him as boot money, the sum of $3l 1-2-that the defendant represented his horse gentle. kind, and just wha the plaintiffs wanted for the use of livery stable And the plaintiffs alleged, that the horse, so re- ceived by them, was unkind, vicious, and who'll, manageable, and that the defendant knew hin so to be. at the time of his said warranty.-Ple; General issue.-Verdict for plaintiffs, $s5,oo- Hall and Hollister for plaintiffs Seymour and Ba con for defendants. .-.'." 'a'2 | .- .----- .-....-... ... .. .;. 1 THe Anti Rent Rebelion.-The utmost activity is manifested by the citizens of Delaware county in bringing to justice the murderers of Steele.- Forty one prisoners have been brought in; fifteel of whom have been fully committed as accessorie to the murder, among which number is Earle, thu author of the fatal affair." ..'
 The anti-rent rebellion is however spreading int