Litchfield enquirer., 1845-11-06
RUPEREOR COURT,
October adiouFned Term. IRA6,

The following cases were disposed of a! the re- cent adjourned term of the Superior Court, held in this village during the last week-Judge Church presiding.
 J GrGUes vs. SylvGnMs yMeysUin.-This was an action on promissOry note, to which the de- fence of payment was set up. At It's commence ment, it promised from appearances, to consume two or three days but as all the matters in conro veTsy between the parties, were submitted to arbi- tratOrs after the had been trial about half a day, we are unable to inform our readers of the mer its of the defence Counsel for plaintiff, Seymour and Sandford-for defendant. Church.
 Henry L. INunSOn vs EdtCGrd P. Hunt, H. L. WetherH.-Action of trover to recover the value oi certain quantity of broadcloth. The defendant Hunt was captain of Militia company in Canaan' and imposed fine upon Munson for neglect to per- form duty in his company, and issued warrant a. galnst him. to collect fine of four dollars for such neglect; this warrant he gave to the other defend ant Wetheril, who was a constable of Cf naan, and by virtue of the warrant levied upon the property Tn question: The defendants in justification, offer ed proof of these facts and rendered the commis- sion of Capt. Hunt in evidence, to which the plain tiffs counsel gravey objected, on the ground that 1t was simply certificate from the Governor and not issued in conformity to the requirements of the Constitution, and of course conferred no authority. This position, though assumed with all the gravl- ty customary to the learned counsel, however ab- surd his doctrines was most promptly refuted by His Honor, aud the plaintiff then offered to prove that the Captain not legally chosen by the company, and of course illegally commissioned The court, however, decided that if such were the fact, the proper place to show it was before the General Assembly by way ofremonstrance to grant, ing the commission after these decisions, adverse ly to the claims of the Plaintiff. the at his request reserved for the advice of the Supreme Courts of Errors, and will be heard and decided next June. Counsel for plaintiff, Church-for de- fendants, Seymour and Bacon.
 Leri Rice vs AIdea Swif Esq-A Action for assault and battery to which justification was pleaded. The Plaintiff was powerful Indian Of the Schagticoke tribe, and the Defendant gentle man of high responsibility in the town of Kent. Il appeared in evidence that MT. Swift came into the store where the Indian was standing, some time last winter, and while there scufie took place between them, in the course of which MT. Swift picked up small stick of wood and struck the In. dian over the head with it; the sharp edge of the stick cut hole in the seal and partially divided branch of the temporal artery. There was a con. fict of opinion among the witnesses as to which struck first, but it clearly in proof that the In. dian, after the afray, admitted, in more than one instance that he had struck Swift and if Swift had not been too quick for him, he would have given him more. It was also proved that before the af. fray, the Indian had threatened Swift. and told his neighhors that he owed him a good licking, be. cause he (Swft) had killed his dog. Much to the surprise of all, the Jury returned verdict fol the Plaintiff to recover one hundred and fifty dol. lars damages and his cost. Counsel for Plaintiff Sterling and Church for Defendant, T. Smith and N. P. Perry.