Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1847-10-07
VERMONT PHOENIX.
BraitIeboro, Thursday, Oct. I, ls47.
Winaham Comfy Court.


Of cases on the old dockc; from u combination 81
causes only Eve wec iried By The Jsryi and he
Couri ad5ournsd on Saturday morning sfter 3 sc5-
.ion q four days-she shortest SESSION for many
yeAr-
Giusrf cIart Apt vs.. Afsffias saoas. Ape
Tais uas m acton Of assumpsif, APPEALED from
Justice. The derlnraron contained only the con-
mon counts for money pad, money had and receiv-
ei. g. The testimony introduced BY the Plaintiff
tended 10 show that a son o. the Dcfrudanf having
ailed the Defendant aeresd with the Plaintiff thai
II be would bag certain noie, executed y the sor
Of Defendant. b.. the Dciendaai, vUald pay TIE
Plaintiff Nhas he shoad pay for sad note and thar
the Plaintiff did buy said note, and sgrerd 70 pay
therefor q quantity q lime bet viich lime, al the
commencement u this suit. bad no; hoen paid.
The Defendant inrroiseed 10 testimony but Or
jecied 70 he Piainiif recovering, iecause at The
commencement Of the suit. the Plaintiff had not
paid any ihiae Ca sad note and tia; fherrfare the
action Cor monsy paid &c. eould no, he maintained
A verdict vas taken for the Plaintiff suigeVi 70 ihe
opinion Of the COurs uhich opinion was not giFsn
curing the Term, bar a very strong niimAfi0u Wa
given that de verdics could not be maintained.
For Piaiusiif. J l. & n /. Butter; for Defend
AM, o L. Shsnsr-
Aslurs q Coot Ape, vs. Lyman ". .Eiszraa, Apt
This Wa an action Of fruse- soT yoke d oxen.
Ths Defendant yusted under an aii.chzosHt sgniEs;
one RznsdeE Il appeared that The oxsn once be-
loagea 70 Ramsden and vvrr sold o. an execution
aeuias; him The DcfsnaAntciained thatfley r-e-r
purrhnsed IN a. said ale f- the bcnefi q Rams
Deb This wu not made ON satisfactorily 70 the
JurT and thy returned q rerdict for the Plaintiff
Tor s56s2 Tie Csc va not s-rued
For Plaintiff o l.. shsfier; for Defendant J. +
Builer.
Durid Fa.za vs. Hssfsliazfr-
This vas an arsiou azaiusi the tosn q wessaiins-
ter W Injuries SCREWED by he Plaintiff in oonse-
qurnee ii alleged inzuiiirienry u highway IN said
I town Tie testimony for he FlainriE tended to
sho- ihai in Fei4uary lasr the Psiuias was sS,ing
down tie Willard Hill m ssid Wesfmirsfer, with 9
Z load q ra-rpsd posts. On \ SID drawn by tfrec
horses. when hos ucci yoke broke, and IN conse
quence thsreof his horse we're thrown INTO a hols
IN the wall thu, one horse had les hroker- aDoth-
Ct Ose was injured, snd tia; the Plaintiff himself
rrceivea some iBjaTiez.
4 Tie testimony Of the Dcfrndszs tended 70 show
thar The wall was in good rsJair, thar there nc
hole in The road and tla1 the Paiuiiz was wanting
m ordinary care in asng defective neck vote and
m not chAining his runner IN going down hl The
eAse was submitted vitious argument yerdies 70.
Defendant
] For H4ntia a a G. Kcys= and j Kintall; g,
Defendant W c. bradley, \. T shszss and Wall
Ct q Kellogg
I Leara Lisuz ". Gsorye w. NseAas
This was an action q libel agalnss our brushe-
NieboAs a she Dsnoe1.f
Il aTp-ar-d N. e.sdrurr saal On the I7th Deem
Der lAs, there appeared n the Democrat noiice o.
the marriage Of the Plaintiff with one Miss Mar
CrOEnineshSei1- The Paiusifi proved TIA; Al he
rine mentioned m aid marriage notiue. he was q
married man and had bern for some Il or Is wears
that he Wa living with ms wife and eighf children
Al HInsdAle n H that Miss Crovninsshield vas 4
domestic IN his family; and that the pahi1zfian had
caused lrt< talk and iaughter AZ the expense Of
the Plaintiff, although Il did not appear thar any onc
believed that he had really married Miss Growing.
shield. The Defendans did not deny the publiea,
tio1 or il hhelious character buf depeaded urou
the facts and circumstances IN the case tending, &c
show thar the time Of the pnble.tioI he did no,
know Of is hheIious ehzraraer
The testimony tended 10 show thar the u1.ioe va,
received ttruuph the Post Ofics without sny mans
beng sffsehcd II thal Afser shout so copies d
tne edifiur containing the nnfire had been srraes
Of and IaT1iv distribufsd the Dfenasnf VA inform.
Ell thai The notiee hoax and immediately stop
ped The pres and took cot Ihs notice l. appeared
thai al the time the nofiee was taken out there ~
manned N the Office aAoui qairc Of papers contain
ing the nosor but n did nos distinctly appear shrth-
er these were Distributed or not
Ihu Cuurr -. Il.
published the notice without knowing lis real char.
Aeisr and innocent Of any intent nH5e ne Plain
in he could nOi be found gnsy; huf Il they found
thai he Pnhshed ii, knowing IL flsiry ihey would
find him guilty and would give 70 the PlAn1ih sud.
damages a. they ih0aehf him susirlea TO- II they
found t4i up TO the time the press Was stopped and
tho notice taken the Defendant was cnilrIes..
YET II afer being notified Of the tue character q the
notics, he distributed any Of The papers then remain
ing IN his ofce, containing the notice he would be
technically guilty Of the publication charged.
IL was understood thar the subject Of their d;sa-
eTeemeni Was whether any Of the qaire Of nauers
lefi m tie ofes when de notice Was taken oui were
Distributed or not
4 For Plaintiff E kirkland and o. L shAfser; tor
Defendant J. ID. Bradley and C. l. Walker
Hssr-insseT " 76snskesd
Tins was an appeal from an order Of removal Of
pauPer whose hast settlement was alleged to be in
1o~nshend. The Defendant commended that The
pauPer had gained a residence in Westminster and
50 the Jury found
For Plaintiff, w c. Bradley n 7. Shease. and
Walker kellogg for Defendant J. Roberts and
I o. L shaher
This closed the Jury business
Lad by the name Of johnson was arrairned
upon charge Of Larceny, plead guilty., and was
sentenced 20 one years imprisoamelii in the State
] Prison
fherr was less than the usual amount OF Cour,
business.
The GRIND jury found some ten or twelve bin,
OF Indictment 1t j. understood that bu, two or
three Of them were FIR the breach Of license laws
srRiNefIEI-D REruniIcAN.-FTiend Bowles
Of the Republican, Is not 10 Be excelled in the
r