The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1846-12-24
Reported for the Voice of Freedom.
Court Calendar.

Reported for the Voice of Freedom.
Court Calendar.
ADDISON COUNTY COURT, DECEMBER
Term, 1916. This court commenced its session at
Middlebury on Tuesday, the Sth inst. Present Hon,
Milo l.. Bennett, Chief Judge, and Hon. Villa law.
renee and Hon. George Chapman, Assistant JUDGES,
The first case tried was
Needham & Dennis,
vs..
James Heath.
Inns was an action of debt on a recognizance en-
'eieo ho by defendant on the 18th of February,
1872, on an appeal by his son, HAL Heath. from q
judgment which the plaintiff had recovered apeins&
hin before a justice, and upon which the said Hal
confessed Judgment on the Both of May following
Inc plaintiffs claimed to recover the additional coat
ana also the remainder of the amount of the recop
nzance, for intervening damages. The defendants
did not contest their right to the additional cost and
plead in offset a judgment in his favor apainst tba
plaintiff for about $40, which the plaintiffs did
not dispute; but the defendant denied that the plain
'NS nave sustained any intervening damages and
upon this question q trial was had. The nlaip.
tfs endeavored to show that the said Hial bod in
Ills possession on said 18th of February, a horse and
wagon, and several other articles of personal proper
w most OF which were disposed of before the 3Oth
0 May after when he confessed Judgment. The
defendant endeavored to prove that this propertv had
all been sold to the said James In tbn month IF "a.
'ooer previous, in answer to which the plaintiffs en-
oeaVoreo 10 snow that this sale was fraudulent, and
in"ue u impair the rights of creditors, and that there
nao oeen no change of possession at the time of tba
appeal. All the above questions were left to the in.
ry-but the defendant showed that n part Of tho
property remained in the same situation at the TINA
Oh the confession of judgment that it was in at tho
Time the appeal was taken, and commended that even
though the sale made in October was fraudulent vet
II Sulllclent property to satisfy the plaintiffs claim
remained in the same situation, and cou1d have boor,
us well attached at the time Of the confession nc o.
the time of the appeal; the plaintiff had sustained
io damages but the court ruled otherwise, and
charged the jury that the defendant could claim
hothlng on this supposition ofhis own act being fran
dulent.
The jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs to recov--
er S2S,H.
L'ns|ey q BechrrM for plaintiffs,
Barber & Phelps for defendant.
WEDNESDAY, December 9th..
John B. Wilson,
vs., Action on Policy of Insurance..
1t appeared that plaintiff became insured by the
defendants on December 2G, 1914 for the sum O fS13Oo.
4 part OF which, $50 was on his tin and stove build-5
.ng IN Bristol, and the remainder on his stoves. tin
md sheet iron ware, and his stock and tools therein
of which it appeared were destroyed by fire on.
0, 1915.
The defendants commended that plaintiff was gull
y OF fraud, in procuring the building to be insured
or more than its value, and offered testimony To-
now tiat SAID building was not worth over $3.50. and
nat plaintiff gave only 1915 for it, together with the
ana on winch 1t stood only q few months previous.
he plaintiffs witnesses all estimated the building at
rom $500 to $50, with the exception of ono who !
laced 1t at 800. The defendants also commended
NAT plaintiff had under the Sth bye-law of the Com
any, forfeited all claim by fraud in rcpresentinghi his
oss to the Company to be greater than it really WIS
pom some of the articles insured. They also claim
that it they were liable at all, they were liable
oaiy two-thirds of the cash value of the property
III consequence of a notice to this effect.
'hieh was printed upon the application which plain
II made, and upon which the policy was issued.
The court charged that there was no such mis-
presentation of the value Of the building as would
itself avoid the policy, and that the plaintiff had
rleltcd no right in consequence of tho bylaws OF
&c company, as they wcrc not referred TO in the
itself; and that the plaintiff was entitled to
co~ver,unless the jury believed from the testimony
at the fire occurred by his procurement or design.
Id that upon the point of the building being ipsur-
|, and the p aintitis claim for more property than
lost was proper. Upon the question of damages.
C court charged that the plaintiff would be enti-
ID TO recover the whole of the cash value of such of
C property destroyed as was covered by insurance,
divided such value did not exceed the amount 50,
'ured' The plaintiff claimed to recover between
w and $l0O for ninety six camphene lamps, but
court charged that these articles were neither
or sheet iron ware, or stock, and were not there
c included in any description of property men
ned in his policy. The trial was commenced OH
ednesdNy, at 10 O'Clock, A. NJ, and the examina-
n of the witnesses occupied the remainder of the
The whole of Thursday from o A. M. to p.
was taken up by the arguments in the cause, and
the charge of the court. On Friday morning the
Y returned a verdict for the ~plaintif-damaees
(The verdict obtained by the plaintiff at
last June term was for Sl3S4 50.)
.iasEey d Bcck4cih for plaintiff.
3,4ggs 6 Williams and Barber q Bushnell for de-
lants.