The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1847-12-30
Reported for the Voice Of Freedom.
ADDISON COUNTY COURT.
(Decen1Jer Term.

The Addison County Court commenced its De-
cember Term at Middlebury, on Tusday the 18th
inst. Upon calling the jury docket it was found that
all the causes assigned for trial this day were dis
posed of by being either referred, continued Or dis
continued.
On Tuesday, December 18th, the forenoon was
occupied by the court in hearing court causes, III
consequence of the absence of witnesses in the caus-
es which stood next in order for trial by jury. AT
the opening of the court in the afternoon, the jury
trials were commenced and disposed of us follows:
LEWIS PoSD \ THIS was an action
Va of treSpass for taking
DAVID CHURCH, and others, and carrying away
quantity of goods The goods in question were those
formerly owned by JOSEPH SIMoNDs Jr. Of Whiting,
and the plaintiff claimed to have attached them as
the constable of Whiting, on process in favor of o.
w. HORTON, on the morning Of the 10th OF Febru-
airy, A. D., 1917. The dcit., rs sheriff of Addison
county, claimed to have made prior attachment Of
them on the afternoon and evening previous, upon
writ in favor of BRAMBALL, FAIRBANKS & Co. 1t
appeared that the defendant went to the store of said
Smonds in Whiting, having said writ in his posses
son at about O'clock p. IN. of the 9th Of Feb, in
company with NIxoy, another of the defendants,
and there remained during the principal part OF that
afternoon and evenings that during this time per-
mitted the regular clerk of the store to continue to
have the apparent management of the store, and to
sell to customers as usual, and that he remarked
several times during the evening that he was wait
ing to see man from Sudbury. The court charged
that such conduct his part nvadated any attach
ment which lie might previously have made; but
the defendant, CHURCH, gave evidence tending to
prove that after the business hours had closed, he
locked the store, took possession of the same and
put it in the charge Of said Nixon and Of the clerk,
and that they proceeded to take IN inventory pur-
suance of these directions. Evidence was intro
duccd on the part of the plaintiff, tending to show
that the defendant did not thus take possession, and
that the inventory above mentioned was taken by
the said Nixon and the clerk under the directions
of SIMoNDs, after the defendant had left the store
which was about II or II o'clock that night, and
that after this time, well as before, the said ST.
monds and his clerk had the entire control and man.
agcmcnt, and that said Nixon was acting wholly UNI
der sNd Simonds. 1t appeared that between and
o'clock on the morning of the 10th, while the said
Simond5 and Nixon were outside the front door OIL
the store, the plaintiff entered said store from the
back part and locked said Nixon out, and then pro-
cceded with the assistance of the clerk, to remove
the goods from the shelves to the counters and thai
in u short time thereafter the said Church and Nix
son returned and broke into the back part of the
store; and about noon of the Same day removed
said goods from the store.
The court charged that the right OF the plf. to re
cover, dependedupon the fact whether the defendan
had as he claimed, assumed and taken the actua
custody and control Of the store, and that the cir
cumstanco of his employing the clerk to assist il
taking the inventory, the fact of Simonds' being
in the store, if Nixon had the control of it, would
not of themselves be consistent with the defendan
(Church's) claim. The was submitted to thu
Jury on the forenoon of the 17th and they returned
a verdict for the defendants.
BRIGGS & WILLIAMS, WICKER and A. PECK 70
Plf BARBER s. BUSHNELL, LINsLEY& BECKwITI
and PHELPS for Defts.