Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1846-05-14
Court Of Common Pleas.

u
whcre both parties reside.
The defendant contendcd frs that the consideration
Of the pfomse not in writing the promise void,
der the construction given 10 the statute Of frauds in ~ H.
second that the rent guaranteed had actually been paid in
work by Graves according the original understanding
with the plaintiff which work the plaintiff had applied
other liabilities Of Graves
On the first point the Court decided for the plaintiff, on
the ground that they had satisfactory evidence that the
promise void by the laws Of N H. and until they had
they be governed by those Of this State The second
point lett to the Jury, who brought IN verdict for the
defendant
Walker a Kellogg for plaintiff and w. {. & }. ID.
Bradley for defendant
Lpther SarPen, vs. John Retrs.--Ths action Of
cectmcn of the purpose Of settling boundary line be-
tween the farms the pares The examination Of witness
lasted nearly dsy and half, but the finally went
oil upon a law point without, going to the jury
It appeared that eleven years since, the present de-
PENDANT brought an action Of uespass tho freehold
against the present plaintiff in which this very question OF
boundary line hgsed, and recovered verdict and
Judgment The Coun held the former Judgment conclusive
upon the question Of title.
Exceptions taken and passed to the Supreme Court
Bradley a Walker aud Reyes for plaintiff, and w. c.
Bradley, E. Kirkland. and o. L. shafer, for defendant
The Topn n aaieo, apple, hs Tolea If To'oashend,
appeah-Ths appeal from order Of removal OF
pauper made by The plaintiff The defendant oon,ended
the pauper had gained seemen, in the Of jamaica
and therefore was not liable TO be removed
ltaPpeafed in evidence, this, the pauper had removed
from Townshenl to Jamaica than years since
but that during that time be had with his family moved
the line into Londonderry for a few weeks when he
returned and the question whether the years
continuous residence required to make settlement in Ja.
naea commcnce from his return from Londonderry
or from the time when he first removed TO Jamaica Evi.
eencc given by the defendant tending show that the
removal to Londonderry temporary one and for
the IN
being rePared aud that he always intended return and
did return within very short time. This intention 10 re-
turn denied by the plaintiff and evidence given
tending 10 dspoye IT, but after day had been oceu.
pied examining wtnessrs and opening the the Ju
~ the Court held that uasmueh there had been
al removal with family and effects the intention to reform
even Il 1t existed would not alter the character Of that
moval aud that the years did commence running
against jamaica until the return Of the pauper from Lon.
dondeffy md that the order Of removal was therefore
proper The Jury returned pro oms verdict the pf
For plaintiff, J. Z. Butler, J. d Bradley, and a. Reyes
for defendant Roberts, W c Bradley, aud o l. shaer
Mss vs.. Rec ----This was altogether the
most interesting Of the term and its occupied the
two last days Of the FIRST week It action Of defa
nation brought by the plaintiff, young lady, sgainsi the
defendant, clergyman, for slanderous words
The FIRST count for words spoken NJ her in her eapac
y school teacher the SECOND for words derogaiory to
her ssu woman, and alleging special damage.
The words spoken to young clergyman under the
pretence Of warning add caution and this clergyman
the principal witness for the prosecution proved the
speaking OF the words
Evidence given tending to show ihstthe witness had
given different versions Of the language By defend
ant at different times
During the trial the defendant counsel offered evidence
Of the general character OF the painiT in mitigation Of
damages The plaintiff counsel expressed readiness to
meet the question Of character at Court where bat
objected 10 the testimony nadmissbe and The Court re-
jecied Il
The defendant then offered to show BY a clergyman on
The stand the usage Of the clergy regard eomunea
tons made each ohesthai they were esteemed eonfden
lia-but the Count rejected the testimony.
The testimony occupied day. aud the Arguments Of
the counsel another
The argued for the plaintiff by c l. Walker and
j. ID Bradley for the defendant BY o L. shaner and n
Richardson.
The Court charged the Jury, that the words charged in
the first count aeionahle in themselves but that to
sustain the second count they fad special damage
that If they believed the principal witness they would find
the speaking Of tie words but il not, they would find for
the defendant They must however, not only find that
the words spoken, bot that they were spoken mac
iously Malice is presumed from the alsiy the charge
and tie burden is the defendant show that they were
spoken under such circumstances ebul the presumption
OF malice No person has right, under the preence of
regulating the conduct Of Others to utter calumnatng and
slanderous words knowing them be false or not having
good reason 10 believe them be Cergvmen have
no peculiar privileges this respect
In estimating damages they liberty to take into
consideration the position Of the plaintiff society as well
that Of the defendant They were not 10 give heavy
damages because the defendant clergyman but Sian
deTous words coming from occupying his position
were far more injurious than IL they from person of
low and base eharae,er and damages they that
subject, were to be given accordingly
The Jury, after being out between two and three hours
returned with verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of 1000
During the progress Of the trial and argument the Court
House filed to its capacity by an audience evil
IDENTIFY deeply interested in the result
sEeoSD WEEK.
.4be Sioddard VS.. Moses Tarbis-This was an action
against officer for neglect the service OF writ against
one Harris consequence of which the plaintiff lost part
Of his debt
Testimony given tending to prove hata writ in favor
Of the plaintiff against Harris had been served, aud proper
~ attached thereon but that for supposed defect it
thought hes, ii again. after correcting the
defect and writ together with notice OF the dscontnu-
Of the first suit put into the hands Of defendant
serve but that he served wris subsequently put
to his hands first by of which the defendant lost the
lien on property that he otherwise might have required
The defendants counsel requested the Court charge
the Jury that defendant bound serve writ that
served aud the suit Withdrawn the prose-
nu,on of the writ necessary for the protection of the
officer serving il.
The Court charged otherwise but expressed some doubts
upon the point charged that defendant bound serve
wrts in the order in which they placed in his hands,
and il he had not done and in thereof the
plaintiff had been injured, they must make him whole
The Jury found verdict for the plaintiff for the amount
Of his debt unpaid against Harris Exceptions taken
For plaintiff A. soddard and Walker Il Kellogg; Tor de.