The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1847-04-08

he had removed with his family and most Of
his effects. 1t appeared that Clayton had bar,
gained for piece Of land i'll Jamaica, and had
cat some logs for the purpose of building
log house thereon, and there was testimony
tending to prove, that he intended to build
said log house speedily, and return to Jamal-
ca. But the Court charged that although
this might be the case, yet if the pauper had
actually removed with his wife and family and
most OF his furniture, and had no shelter or
dwelling house in Jamaica then III existence
to which he intended to return, and intended
to remain in Londonderry until he built said
house, such residence in Londonderry would
break the continuity Of his residence i'll ia
maica. 10 this the defendant excepted.
Argued for Plaintiff by j. Dorr Bradley
with whom were j. E, Butler and A. Reyes.
For Defendant w. c. Bradley and j. Roberts
with whom was 0. L. Shafter.
Redfeld,J. This is question of residence.
Did the 20 days staying in Londonderry
amount to Il dwelling? Clayton did not go
from the 20 acre lot but from some other part
of the town where he did not intend to return.
There was then no dnimuS reuertends. He did
expect to create dwelling house, but it makes
no difference when this was, it being mere
ly prospective residence. All persons are
either resident or transient. Was Clayton
with his wife, family and effects, transient
person. in Londonderry? Could the author
tiles have so treated him? In this country
with the migratory habits OF our people al
most all residences are more or less temporary.
Had Clayton intended to reside in London
derry year under precisely the same circum-
stances, could any doubt have existed This
matter of domicil is more matter Of fact than
intent Judgment affirmed.
Dic v. DumnaerSfon. This was an action Of
debt on award and the only question raised
by the pleading was whether selectmcn have
the power to submit claim against the town
to arbitration The County Court held that
they had such power and gave judgment for
the Plaintiff and Defendant excepted.
Argued by A. Reyes for Plaintiff, and G.
/. Walker for Defendant with whom was j.
D. Bradley.
Hall, j. Under the old Statute it might
be difficult to find the power claimed for Sc
lectnen in this case, but the Revised Statutes
have enlarged their power. They are by
Sec. Al, Page 81 of Revised Statutes authorl- |
zed to audit, and in their discretion allow
claims against the town for money paid or ser
vices performed. In Schoff v. Bloomfield, 8 |
VT Rep. 472 it was held that an agent Of
town expressly authorized to " compromise"
a claim might submit the same to arbitration. |
Selectmen have no less power We do not !
nt0nd to say that all matters may be submit |
ed, but such as selcctnen have authority to |
audit and allow" Judgment affirmed
Reported for the Vermont Mercury.
WINDSOR CoUNTY-March. Term, 1847.
On Saturday last, judgments were rendered
n the following cases:
The administrator Of James Barnard v,
Thomas Russell. Judgment in G. G for de-
endant Exceptions by plaintiff. Argued
~ Judge Hutchinson and Mr. Peck for the
plaintiff and by Mr. Barrett for the defendant.
Opinion of the Court pronounced by Red
ieId, j. Judgment of the county court af-
irmed.
The plaintiff claimed by virtue of levy of
execution in which the premises were correct
J described. The defendant claimed by vir-
ue of prior levy in which the description
made the starting point in the north line of
he highway at the n0yhl-WeSt corner of a
by courses, distances and
to the centre Of Oil Mill brook
thence dorm the said brook" to a certain
thence on known line to the
DAD, thence eastwardly on said road to the
lace Of beginning. This description was err
oneous in saying "noHh-,ceSt' instead of
ne southeast corner of a house lot. 1t was
lso erroneous in saying "d0,cn" instead of
p the brook In other respects, as to mon
ments, courses and distances, it was cor
act.
The court below held the prior levy good,
nd rendered a judgment tor the defend
mt.
The Judge, in giving the opinion of the
curt, said that the only question was as to c:
le suf1iciency Of the prior levy. The rule }
construction of description in levy of exc
ltion is the same as in deeds, except that in
eeds the construction is to be taken most
rongy against the granter. If the land can t
e ascertained by reasonable intendment, the
IVY will stand.
The starting point is in the north line of ;
le highway, and where the house lot coin !
des with that line. Then the COURSES dis
lnces and monuments are correct to the cen +
e Of the brook. BY the rule, which is sound, !" :.
id down in VT Rep. 1913, the true point of '.
eginning can be ascertained by running back =
ON other parts Of the description. The 9TH
r error is corrected by the rue that direc ,
on must yield TO known monuments. =
Ephrdim hgraham, Jr v. Leland g. Ed e
.mads. Judgment in G. c. that writ abate. v
by plaintiff. Argued by MIR /
toughton for the plaintiff and Mr. N. Rich a
rdson for the defendant. Opinion of the j
curt pronounced by Davis j. Judgment of
lie county court affirmed
The writ in this case was signed by l. B. i
erson, Justice Of the peace, returnable to the f
ounty court. There was special authori- a
alton by the Justice of an Indifferent DerSon
serve the writ,and the writ was served and V
eturned IN due form OF law by the person so $
authorized. The writ was endorsed by i
S.oughton and Person, Att'ys for Plh'" said 2
ustice being member of said firm of attor-
eys. Plea in abatement, on the ground that
lc Justice was attorney ofrecord' and there .
IRE his authorization of the special officer was
old. Demurrer to said plea The court