The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1847-04-29
Court Calendar.

Court Calendar.
CHITrENDEN County COURT.
Reported for the Free Press.
March 10th.
S!qrJ6d & al Moore. This was an audita
querela to SEE aside Judgement rendered a.
gainst the complainants by a justice of the
peace, in an action of trespaSs, upon the
ground that one of the complainants, (then
deendan) was minor at the time the Judge
ment was rendered. and appeared in that suit
by attorney. The court held that as the
suit was against the three jointly, the infancy
Of either defendant avoided the judgement
not only as to him, but as to the other two
and directed a verdict for the plaintiff with
nominal damages.
Shafter tor the plaintiffs,
Kasson & Underwood for defendant.
H. 4. Valentine V. Chester Pratt. This
was an action on the case for obtaining goods
by fraudulent representations. 1t appeared
that the plaintiff was a merchant in New
York, and the defendant who was then
doing business in Charlotte, applied to him to
purchase bill of goods upon six months cred
it. The plaintiff not knowing the defend
ant, enquired of him particularly in relation
him that he enquired for the purpose of aser-
tanning whether he could sell him goods or
not The defendant in answer to these en-
quiries stated that he had stock of goods
worth about $1600-about $1,000 in valid
notes and accounts--that he was doing good
business, and owed only 5000 in N. Y. and
nothing in Vermont or elsewhere, and that
he was worth $4,000 over and above all debts
Upon the faith ofthese representations goods
We're delivered to him on credit to the amount
Of $500. Shortly after the defendant return
from New York, his property was attached
by his father, who resided in Vermont on
debt of between TO and three thousand dol
lars, due at the time the representations
above named were made, and subsequently
sold upon execution. And from that time
Tie defendant has been insolvent and irrespon-
sble, The defendant denied making the
representations charged, & that the goods were
delivered upon the faith of them. Verdict
for the plaintiff $435 900.
Smalley & Phclps for plaintiff
Tucker & Kasson for defendant.
CAas. Mills v Henry W. Catlin. This was
an action upon the covenant against incum-
brances in deed of apiece ofland sold by the
defendant to the plaintiff, ltappeared that
at tue time the deed was taken, the premises
we're subject to life estate in anotherpcr-
son. In the deed the premises were desert
bed as"all the land own in a certain place.
The defendant claimed that this description
conveyed only the interest the defendant had
in the premises and that the life estate was
not therefore an incumbrance on the land con-
vcyed so as to be within the covenant. But
the Court held otherwise and left the question
of damages to the jury. Verdict for the plain
tiff$160.
Russell & Platt for plaintiff
Kasson & Hickok for defendant.
March 3Oth.
State r. GuyoRe This was an Indictment
for witul and malicious mischief in throwing
stone thro' the window of dwelling house
in the night time. Verdict guilty and SEN
lance to pay fine of $50 and cost
Hill, States Atty for the prosecution.
Skater for the respondent.
State Chas Clemens. This was an indict-
mentor burglary and theft in breaking into
the Post Office in the night time and steal
ing money theIefrom. The offence was COM
mitted by the respondent and one Morris
negro, who became witness for the govern
ment and testified on the trial. Verdict gull
ty and sentence to States Prison for four
years.
Hill States Atty, & Maynard for prosccu-
ton.
Chittenden, for the respondent.
March 31st
1871 II. Peck & Co. JOSEPH Smith. This
was an action of dssumpsit upon two guaran-
tees for 5000 and $3.50, given by the defend
ant to the plaintiffs for goods to be sold to the
defendants son j. Smith, jr. 1t appeared
j. Smith jr. was contractor upon the Cen
trail Railroad and applied to the plaintiffs to
purchase goods. They required guarantee,
he produced one from his father to the IL
mount of 5000, and took goods at different
times to the amount of that guarantee and
about 800 over. On being called on for
guarantee by the plaintiff he obtained anoth-
err from the defendant for the amount of $3.50
and took goods to an amount exceeding that
sum, and making due to the plaintiffs in all
about $500. At this time he made payment
ofabout $500. This payment the plaintiffs
claimed was agreed to be applied to that
part of the debt then due and not covered
by the guarantee, and the balance to remain
in the hands of the plaintiff as payment in
advance for goods to be subsequently supplied
And it appeared that plaintiffs did after that
sell j. Smith jr., goods on credit to a consid-
cradle amount. On the part of the defend
ant it was claimed that the payment of $500
was expressly agreed when made, to be APP
piled to that portion of the debt due covered
NY the defendants guarantees, in order to