Spirit of the age. [volume] (Woodstock, Vt.) 1845-1913, 1847-04-01
pronunced by Royce, c. ]. Judgement Of the
County Court affirmed.

-
pronunced by Royce, c. ]. Judgement Of the
County Court affirmed.
Solomon Dowaer vs.. CLARK ChamJerlin.
Judgement in G.. C.. for defendent. Exceptions
Tracy for the plaintiff, and by Mr. Walker and Mr.
pronounced by Kellogg, j. Judgement of the
County COur. reversed. Case rernanded for an
other tral;-Davis, j. dissenting
Debt on judgement. Defendant pleaded dis
charge in Bankruptcy,--and, among other things,
alleged in his plea that "notice was published
three weeks SUCCESSFULLY" in a certain paper
Inc replication trayersed the plea and rendered
the issue, which was joined The defendant, TO
prove his plea, introduced records of the U. S.
llsllict Court by which it appeared that, though
the iirst publication OF notice in the paper named
was more than ~ days before the day of hearing,
the notice was not published three weeks sue
cessively." as was alleged.
The court charged the jury ifthere was one
publication more than 20 days before the day Of
hearing it was a compliance with the law, and the
proof sufficient under the plea. The Supreme
Court held that, though it was not necessary to
have made the allegation, still as it had been made
it could be treated at most, as immateridl, and
not impertinent. True the Bankrup. act only re-
qured 20 days before the hearing. But the same
act provides that the courts may make rules for
proceedings in Bankruptcy. The rules, which
are put into the case and profered IN the plea,
provided that notice shall three weeks successive
ly. The defendant was therefore bound TO prove
this allegation
AuguStus'P. Hunton, vs.. Clark ChamJerlin
Judgement of c. Z. Cor defendant. Exceptions
by plaintiff. Argued by Mr. Weymouth and Mr.
IluntOn for the plaintiff, and Mr. Walker for de-
PENDANT. Opinion of the Court pronounced by
Davis, Judge. Judgement of the County Court
reversed The case was remanded for another lri-
al.
The To,cn of HaryOrd,vs. The TO,Vn Of Hart.
iaad
(Pauper Cuse) Judgement in C. C. for Hart.
ford. Exceptions by Hartand. Argued by MI
Barrett and Mr. Chandler for larford--and by
Mr. Converse for fIarland. Opinion Of the court
pronounced by Royce, c. J, Judgement Of the
County Court affirmed.
Appeal f.Om order Of removal. Issue in two
pleas One that settlement was not in lIartand
the other that the pauper was not thargabe, The
pauper's settlement was in Hartland unless one
had been gained by seven years residence, under
The 9Th sec. of the act of 1917. Held also, that
he could not commence ganDga settlement IN
Hartford till he WAS Of the age Of legal majority.
Held also, that a removal TO Lebanon with his
family and effects, and setting up business and re-
manning there three or four months, and then re-
turning 10 Hartford, was an interruption OF his
residence in Hartford, 80 as 10 prevent settlement
though there may have been an Invention when he
removed 10 Lebanon Of returning 10 Hartford al
some time.
Under the second plea, il was held that where
the pauper was slckly widow, and had four
small children though there may have been some
means existing out Of which she may have subsiSt-
ed only for short time, the court would not in
that case disturb the order; especially us there did
not appear to be any collision, on the part of
Hartford. TO get rid of the pauper at that time, to
prevent the pauper from gaining setllement-three
or four years beng yet necessary in order 10 gain
the paupe. settlement in Hartford.
Enoch UcihcrJe v, .4iphcus Ellison. judy
ment in C.. C. for the defendant. Exceptions by
the plaintiff. Argued by Mr. FuIiam for the
plaintiff, and by Mr. Chandler for the defendant.
Opinion of the Court pronounced by Kellogg, J.
Judgment of County Court reversed.
Trespass for carrying away manure.
The plaintiff purchased a farm which the de-
PENDANT was occupying as tenant 10 the plaintiff s
grantor.
In February the defendant carried away the
manure which had been made during the winter
from the hay &C., raised on the farm the previous
season. The manure had been kept in the stable,
with the intention on the part Of the defendant oil
removing it.
The plaintiff purchased the farm within the
same winter and prior to the removal OF The
manure, and at the time of purchase had no no
tice of the defendants intention Of carrying away
the manure. TIE defendants tenancy expired
the first of the next April, and the plaintiff at the
same time came into possession OF the farm.
Held that the manure belonged to the freehold
and passed by the deed TO the plaintiff, that The
defendant had no right to remove it,
Eplirain Jones, Adm'r,v Y. Lewis Robinson
Judgment in C. C. for the plaintiff. Exception:
by the defendant. Argued by Mr. Coolidge and
MIR Tracy for the plaintiff, and by Mr. Barrett and
Mr. Fuliam for the defendant. Opinion of the
Court pronounced by Royce, c. ]. Judgment oil
tho County Court affirmed.
BENJAMIN B. Sergeant Y. Luther .4dams and
Simeon Saerwin. Judgment in C. C. for the
plaintiff. Exec plions by the defendant. Argued
by Mr. Barrett and MIR N. Richardson for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Adams for the deiendanls.-
Opinion of the Court pronounced by Royce, G. }
Judgment of the County Court reversed Case
remanded for another trial.
Thomas r. Foster " Riley A. Deming & Co
Judgmen, in C. c. for plaintiff. Exceptions by
the delendats Argued by Mr. p. r. Washburr
and Mr. Adams for the plaintiff, and by MIR N.
Richardson for the defendant. The opinion oil
the Court was pronounced by Davis, J. Judgment
of County Court affirmed.
Daniel L. Bachelor v. Silas U'arren. Judg'
ment in C. C. for the defendant Exceptions by
the plaintiff. Argued by Mr. N. Richardson and
Mr. Fullam for the plaintiff, and by MIR 7. I.
Washburn and Mr. Tracy for the defendant
Opinion of the Court pronounced by Kellogg, J.
Judgment ofhe County Court reversed. Case
remanded for another trial.
Luther adams. v.Reuben Duncklee.
Judgment in C. C. for the defendant. E1cep-
lions by tho plaintiff. Argued by Mr. Adams
for the plaintiff and by Mr. Barrett and Mr.. N
Richardson for the defendant. Opinion OF the
Court pronounced by Royce, C. J, Judgment OF
Ipl M