The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1846-10-15
Court Calendar.
Reported for the Voice of Freedom.

SOSiC SGAC11uuIs
Reported for the Voice of Freedom.
Saturday, Oct. Sd, 1916. The United States Cir
cult Court for the district of Vermont commenced
its semi annual session at Rutland this day Present
Hon. SAMUEL PRENTIs, District Judge, Vermont
District.
The Grand Jury was empanneIled, sworn and
charged by Judge Prentis, who remarked that here
tofore it was necessary that q grand jury should be
summoned to attend at every regular session of this
court, and it had often occurred that when they were
come together there were no cases presented for their
consideration, which, while it was highly creditable
to the people Of the state, seemed tobe attended with
an unnecessary expense, to obviate which an act Of
Congress recently passed has provided that hereaf-
ter they should not be summoned unless the clerk
was specially directed so to do. The court was in
formed by the District Attorney that he had two
cases of perjury to lay before them that this was a
crime which involved deep moral t~urp.tude, and
any instance Of it should receive their ready consid
Grafton that in order to be guilty of it, one must
have willully and coIruptly swore to a falsehood up
on some material point in the course o~fjudicinl pro
~ceedings before the courts Of the United States
That the testimony, to be wilfully and corruptly
false, must be Intentionally so, and if they found that
a witness had testified to that which was not true,
under a misapprehension Or mistake, and without the
design of swearing falsely, he was not guilty, and if
they believed this to be the case, they ought not to
present him. 1t was necessary, Judge p. said, that
the fasity of the testimony should be proved by two
witnesses, or by testimony that was equivalent there
to-.
The petit jury were then empannelled.
ISAAC I. WRIGHT, Esq, of Castleton, and CHAs.
L. WILLIAMS, Esq, of Brandon, were admitted and
sworn as c~ounseAo,s and attorneys Of this court.
Upon calling the docket,there were bat three cases
in which jury trials were desired, and in each of
these there were motions for continuances on the
part of the defendants, the hearing upon which were
postponed until the arrival of Judge Nelson, of the
I. S. Supreme Court, who was expected during the
day.
AT A O'Clock P. NJ. the court went in, and the
grand jury having presented two bills of indictment,
were discharged. Judge Nelson not having arrived,
the court was adjourned to Monday morning at 9
o'clock.
Monday, Oct. 9Th. Present JUSTICE NELSON
of the U. 5. Supreme Court, and JUDGE PREsrIs,
Of the U. s. District Court, Vermont District. Tho
following cases were disposed of as follows
Sarah Hemenway,
Samuel s S: and ais. Motion for a continuance
After argument by c. Linsley for defendants, and
Oms6ee and Edgerton for plaintiff, the cause was
continued, the defendant paying the costs of tho
term, and entering into a rule to take no advantage
of plaintiffs decease in case it should happen before
trial.
Blanchard Gun Stock Factory,
Almcr Town.
A motion for continuance made by the plaintiff
was argued by 0. IL Smith in their behalf, and by
Lucius b. Peck for defendant. The court consider
ing the causes alledged insufficient, refused to con-
tiuuc; and the plaintiff theroupon submitted to 8
non-suit.
United States Bank
Wyllis, Lyman and ais.
This case was continued on mo ton of defendants,
after argument by G. Linslcy for them, and by Hon.
Samuel S. Phelps for plaintiff, the defendants paying
the costs of the term.
Asa Francis, Motion in arrest of judgment,
as. on account of insuficiencv of the
David G Wheeler. declaration.
Argued by Il. Pie,poiat for Wheeler, and by Hon.
S. s. Phelps and c. Liasley for Francis. The decIa-
ration was in a case upon which a verdict was OBJ
tanned at the last May term Of this court. The OBJ
jectiorH-rpon which the motion in arrest were found
cd were,a Z, that the declaration did not state any
title, intercS. a property of the plaintiff to the checks
and m~oney,-which he alleged g he delivered to the
defendant" &C., but the court held that this aver
nent Of delivery imported a possession which was
evidence Of title or ownorship,and that there was not
therefore a total omission of stating, but only a defec-
ire statement Of title, which could not be taken ad-
'antage of after verdict. Secondly, that no agree
nent or undertaking on part of the defendant was
let forth the court considered that the delivery by
plaintiff to defendant to invest at his request, and
he receiptby defendant for that purpose which was
efficient after verdict to raise an implication Of du-
NY on part Of defendant from which an undertaking
you'd be inferred, although it would not be sufi-
lent, if the action were ossunpsit. Thirdly, that
was no averment of any act done by defendant
'hich amounted to a breach of duty,-but the court
onsidered the general charge that d" defendant con-
ucted himself negligently and carclcssly," &c. as
eing all that was required by the precedents. The
hole declaration the court thought was in conform
" with some of the precedents and forms which
ere given in the book, and though they might have
to q different conclusion had the objections
cen taken by dema3Ter,t then they thought that after.
verdict, the defects, if defects they were, wero
lred, and that the declaration must be adiudaed
Efficient.
Tuesday, Oct. 6. Charles Hoadley and John r.
oadley, against each of whom a bill of indictment
r Peywy was returned by the grand fury at the