Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1846-12-04
Court Calender.

FREDERICK FULLER RS WV. T. BhlGGs. This was
an action of assumpsit to recover balance due the
plaintiff for his rcrycrs as deputy coIrctoran inspect
or under the defendant while collector OF the customs
Tor the District OF Vermont The defence was that the
defendant not liable for these services, but that the
plaintiffs claim for his salary was upon the govern
meat. 1t was shown for the plaintiff that the deputy
collectors are recommended for appointment by the
collectors to the department that no accounts are kept
at the department with the deputy collectors, but that
all monies di-burscd and settlements and payments
made with the deputies by the collectors, and that
the defendant had admitted the balance due the plain
tilfand repeatedly promised 10 pay 1t. but had finally
settled his accounts with the government without re-
serving the money due the plaintiff TIN, Court charg
ed thai if the services rendered by the plaint were
performed upon an expectation and understanding 10y
the parties that the PENDANT should be responsible for
the salary, and that the plaintiff was To look TO INN for
payment the plaintiff was entitled to recover and
that evidence OF the ordinary course OF business, at the
department was propcras tending TO show what the
intention OF the parties was Verdict for the plaintiff
$500
A. PECK and PHELPS for plaintiff
BEGGS y | NORWOOD, ior defendant.
LYMAN q CoI.Ers Isaac SHERWOOD, ri A. This
action to rcrovrr the balance due upon prom
isory note for $1,000. II appeared that the note had
been deposited with hr Burlington Mil Co, n, s"cu-
ntv for the payment by Sherwood Tor certain cloths
contracted iorhy him. The note was executed before
the cloths wnrr taken, and the amount OF cloths re-
cgNcd by sherwood, did not exceed the amount that
was Subsequently paid on the notr. The note was at
terW-ds endorsed To tie plaintiffs. The Court held
lil lt portion I lllt 1l' unpaid WIS WITHOUT CONSUL
era ion.anl that the defence was 50 far connected
with the original transaction to be valid against the
enlor-cis Verdict for defendant
SUAirEE, Tor plaintiffs
~ IEcK X PLArr. tor Defendant,
November 4oih
WM.P BRHGS rs HARRY BRADLEY and SAMUEL
bE1WNELL. IAi' was anactpn ot truycr for certain
lumber. alleged To- hnv' been taken by the dcs from
tn" p.1ui The defence ON the part Of Brown
rI that h. did not have any part OF the lumber III
aud On the plrl OF BHdl"y that the lumber
was taken by him under an Agreement OF sale Yer
dict tor plaintiff, sjl93
d BEGG> y | SprEwp5D, for plaintiff.
] \ PrcN. for Bradley.
/ SMALLLr u PHELrs. for Brnwucll.
STATE RS MICHAEL Trrps. Thi. was an Indictment
for stealing money from trunk. For the defence it
was shown that the respondent was but II wears 81
aye, OF very weak intellect, and grossly ignorant And
though the larceny was clearly shown the jury iounc
him not guilty.
STATES ATTY and IIur, for prosecution.
| LYMAN %CnwrENnEy Tor respondent.
! Io>ErH SMITH rs VT CENTRAL K AL Roam Co. Th,
was an appeal from the decision OF Commissioners ap
pouodt to appr-c land damages for land taken by h'
Co for TN" use OF the Road The appeal had been Ia
ken by lodging written statement OF the appeal in the
County Jerks Office, together with copy OF the np
pul-al certified by the town clerk and serving cop
81 the same upon the defendants, together with or
der o notice and summons signed 10y the Clerk, am
the Appellant, all within 30 days from the making q
the appraisal appealed from The defendants moved
To dismiss the appeal upon the ground that it no
granted or certified by the commissioners that no re-
cngnl2anrc for costs was entered into and that tn
Clerk had no authority TO issue the notice and summon,
The Count held that the Commissioners not being
Court of record showing no such authority givcn then
by statute could not grant certify appeal and tina
no provision being made by statute tu the man
! ncr in which appeals should be- taken, that the mod
adopted in this sufficient; that "A rccogni
1 lance Tor costs required by the Statute am
Wa necessary, and that actual notice the defend
ants, was all that required, especially where til
defendants had appeared IN conformity 10 1t. Motto
4 to dismiss overulrd \ number OF similar cases d,
pending upon the questions ruled according
= .ly.
ADAMS & PHELPS, for p'fT
~ PECK PIATT, for dcit