The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1847-05-06
reported for tie Voice Of Freedom.
Court Calendar.

court CalGnQar.
The County Court for Rutland County commenc-
Cd its April term, in 1917, on the 18th
Present, Hon. Inland HALL, Chief Judge.
q E. E1f T. b 5SsT' Asst Judges.
The first case submitted to the jury was
Looms & Lathrop,
w. w. slason & Jas B. Porter
This was an action on q promissory note for about
$379,on which claim there was no dispute Inc de-
PENDANTS filed several pleas in Offset upon which the
trial was had. 1t appeared that about the time the
note in suit was given, the plaintiff received note
signed by the derts and one Griggs,tor five hundred
feet of marble, and at the time executed wri-
ting, by which they agreed that after disposing of
what they could advantageously in the vicinity OF
Rutland to sell the remainder in Boston, New York,
or Philadelphia, and apply the proceeds in payment
of this note The marble was subsequently turned
ont and transported to Whitehall, and thence ship
ped to New York, where it was sold for S72 $50 OF
which, the balance after deductng the eXpenses,was
endorsed upon the note. The defendants claimed
damages in consequence of the neglect and improp-
or management of the plaintiffs, in the disposition OF
this marble The jury was charged that 1t was the
duty of the plaintiffs to have made reasonable cXer-
tions se the property in the vicinity OF Rutland
and as no particular cxertions were made, if they
believed the defts had sustained any damage in
consequence thereofit should be allowed to them =
the court, however said that it was question for
tho Jury, what was or would have been reasonable
exertions but the court thought that mere passive
ness could not be so considered The court further
charged that the defs.were entitled to have allowed
to them oil damages which they had sustained in
consequence of an mprovdent sale by tho plaintiffs
ip New York that the plfs. were bound to use
ordinary care and prudence in the mansomonto the
sale, or such men of ordinary prudence would
oso about their concerns; if the plaintiffs had
used ordinary care and prudence, they were liable
to account only for the actual nett proceeds which
were already endorsed upon the note but if they
had not they were liable for what the nett proceeds
vould have been, provided they had. In consider
ing this question: the jury should take into account
the haste with which the marble was disposed of;
also its value and quality; for if these such
would have prevented it from being sold for more
under any circumstances, it could not be said that
the defts had sustained any damage.
Tho jury, under these instructions, returned YER
dict for the plaintiff to recover $257 81 allowing to
the defts. over 800 for the damages sustained by
them
Harrington and Clark for plaintiffs
0rn.sbee 6 Elgerto" and Foot , Hodges for de-
PENDANTS.
Isaac MsthsSon
William Harnr.
This was an action of hospass for chasing and
worrying the plaintiffs OK, and by throwing stones,
clubs, &c., breaking his leg. The plaintiff intro
lucod The deposition Of one Witness ud the tesmo-
ny Of another to establish the facts stated in his dec
larstion The evidence on the part of the defendant
tended to show that the statements of these witness
c, were untrue account Of the improbable nature
of tho transaction itself, the situation Of the ground
whore it took plsce,SSc. The questions involyedbe
Ing wholly questions Of fact, submitted to the
Jury wish bat few remarks from the court. Theju-
r., %er being out nearly twenty-tour hours, notbo
ing able to agree, were discharged, and the cause
was continued
Trial, j Pond and Hodges for plaintiff.
Foot & EtcrtS and Pie,poiat for deft.
Henry Hail.
II. Y. Hsdley Is Co.
This was sn action of assumpsit on n pronisAory
note 6enod by the defendants, and endorsed by |
- Hadley, James f. Esya Isaac F. Thomp-
son. The execution of the note was admitted. 1t !
appeared that the note was given for the benefit of
the defendants alone, and they gave evidence tome
ing to show that previous to its becoming due they
cold store of goods to the said James +. Esty who
in consideration thereof executed certain notes which
were left in Mr. Thompsons hands, with the under |
standing that they should be paid by taking up and
producing to Mr. Thompson the note in this suit =
that after this note became duc,an had been lodged
In the hands Of attorney for collection, said Esy
put into one Thompson's hands sundry notes and |
accounts for the purpose of raising funds therefrom
Tor tho payment of this note-and that the remain
der were to be delivered to one Jacob Esty; that |
after this the said James L. Estyef tho vicn-
ity where these occurrences happened, and that ia
cob Esty brought this note to Thompson who struck |
his nomo off from it. and delivered to said Jacob the
demands which had been lertby said James +. Tes- ,
tinony was given by plaintiff to show that this sale
from defts to James Z. Esty was not real and
that the demands turned out by James L. were in !
fact the property Of Jacob Esty Of the firm of j.
& j. F. Esty, Of which they we're both members and
to which James +. was largely indebted and that
the procurement of this note by Jacob Esty, under
whom the plaintiff claimed was by purchase of
the same with his own funds, and not by payment
of with the means of james F. Esty. This ques-
ton, whether the note purchased by Jacob, or
paid by him with the funds Of James F. was left to
the jury,-wth instructions that,i the fonnerevent
the plaintiff was entitled to recover and in tho latter
he was not
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for
the amount Of the note.
Hall, and Ornas5ee EHgertoH for plaintiff:
Beaman and Linslev for defendant.
Jesse Paul, !