Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1847-06-18
Court Calendar.
WINDSOR County.
Supreme Court, March 1917.
Reported for the Free Press.

DowSER & WAsHBuRNr e. DANA \ NORTON Debt
on Jail bond Plea, est tacfum, and notice that
Da ma, who was principal IN the bond did not
gress the Jail limits and did act by which the ,her
if was damniiied, and that he was admitted to the
poor debtors OATH.
By the statute of 1877 made the duty OF coun-
,y courts TO set out Jail yards tina, should
coed four squire miles. In 1873 the county court in
oran ge county, where Dana committed, au-
thorized committee TO lay ont Jail yard, as they
should think proper not 10 exceed four square miles
The committee made report, with plan, which was
made by n surveyor under their direction. To this
was appended paper, signed By the surveyor, pyr-
porting be certain altcratl from the survey as
rst made and including the Douglass hoiss 50 CALI
ed. and small square piece OF ground. which
that house stood, aud excluding about the sHrnc
amount from the other side. as first surveyed The
county court accepted the report, as first made. "un
I'll June Term next oiartcr action had
upon the subject. II was conceded by the defendants,
that other record existed can be shown have
ever existed. 1t was shown that Dana, while in com
mitment, went TO the Douglass house The defend
ants offered to prove, that the additional piece had
since the survey. being about thirty years. been
regarded IN the vicinity as within the Jail limits mud
that prisoners had been accustomed go there This
was admitted by the county court The county court
charged the jury, that it the square piece had been 80
acquesced ~ Tor thirty years, etc. itwoud be regar
On the trial the plaintiff gave in evidence the dep
osi,ion ofone Ruer, and the defendants offered 10
prove, as impeachng testimony the declarations of
Ruiier, inconsistent with his deposition The deposit
ton was taken with notice, but the defendants dad
not attend the taking The evidence was admitted.
although objected to by the plaintiffs Verdict and
judgment for the defendants Exceptions BIZ The mann
utis.
The Court, Per DAVIS, j.. held, that the accep.
tance by the court OF the report by the committee
could have no effect, as TO establishing the limits be-
You'd the then next June Term but the county
court correctly assumed that Jail yard de tacfo nigh,
exist which should have all the incidents Of ail wand
established by statute that il has been settled ,hat
usuose Will dispense with the Necessity OF proving the
laying out of school district; SO with highways,
as TO The duty OF towns TO repair them that private
rluI o. nj "a ind l,l.Ss nl.,,.l L
, cupatlon, without deed that It IL upon the same
prclpe, that the appointment of officers and the eA-
s'ence OF corpoatons towns, counties and states is
presumed. and national governments are recognized
as existing de tacto, although may be shown that
there are none such de that the true pr,u c,p
rs mat the presumption of law is conclusive and that
the CONCESSION VIII not overthrow the presumption
1 but that, III this case the court would moi saw xhat
period short OF thirty years would lay the foundation
ioI the presumption
. The court also held, that the general rule that i'm.
peachng evidence cannot be received unless prrce
ded by interogatofies to the witness has never been
Is applied to dispositions. and should not be that the
evidence as 10 the declarations of the deponent Rue,
d was correctly received and that it would have made
ID no difference the defendants had attended at the Ia
king OF the deposition. Judgment, affirmed
WOODBURY. RS. PARKER TroyeI for oxen Tn,
r plaintiff claimed title the oxen by virtue OF al,
Sc on execution, BY himself deputy sheriff al wttct
sale he was the hghes, bidder Il appeared tia, TIM
debtor turned out the property, to be sold upon The
execution, and that he was present the sale, IN,
that the nlanh had slnce paid the full amount Of The
nj execution 10 the execution creditor The defrndan
- offered ev,deno-.' The county eeor Tendrre,
We judgment tor the defendant Exceptions by plaintiff
IS, Argument by j. Barrett and j. Conrerse for plain
8, uh and by A. 2. llunton for defendant
The Court Per RoycE. j., held. that an execution
a. does not OF itself empower the officer levying il n
i'll make sale OF the property 10 himself that il such
r., sale relied upon, 1t should appear to have been
with the express consent OF the debtor and tha
sc it is in the power Ola sheriff. in such case n.
tn would be OF private agent to acquire even deie.
er slbe title to the property.
he IRA DAVIS ., NARY PArRIDeE, Admir-. In ,b,
case the court, Per kELLosG, held. thst ,ha na
u' ute, which provides that the widow and children Of
ed deceased person should have reasonable nIio~sn
tie from the estate for their maintenance .ccn,J,,'
nv their situation IN life, must have reasonsh.
his n ana nm, ha' an administrator could no, b n
"a mad ,or 'hs we egnnien Other account for psyment
ed aoe ,oi 'e college expenses OF one of The IN" ~
he 10, payments Tor broadcloh and making n. san, mo
ncads%;neS 1r such son. nor for the expenses Of A.
,ho, ,h education tor another d ,he sons an
de aa ue statute cannot refer to such eon.rac,s >,
'se himself nr w par. OF an infant he could NOT bin
ne ''''''" ''' IL he Were trading Tor himself wv ""