The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1848-04-27

interest upon the note in suit rs would with other
payments which were shown, fully pay -and
upon this testimony the plaintiff submitted to n
verdict and entered review.
Hale and Foot & Hodges, for Plaintiff.
Briggs s. Williams, for Defendant
GuStavus A. Austin ! Action note. The
as case being of similar
John NJ. Ormsbee & al character with the pre-
ceding was disposed of in the same way without q
trial.
James McDaniels Action promisory
Jacob Edreron len or "iEe bearer 70 and by him
transferred to the plaintiff The defendants intro
duced testimony tending to show that the note was
secured by mortgage of certain premises in Pawlet,
which premises were subsequently mortgagod to
Isaac Mechanics; that this second mortgage was
foreclosed, and the premises taken possession Of by
said Isaac McDaniels and that he subsequently paid
this note to, or purchased it of said Allen and that
the premises were of sufficient value to pay both
membranes. The plaintiff then cndcavored to
prove that the said negotiation with Elisha Allen
was purchase by the said James McDaniels, and
that the said Isaac was acting merely as his agent ;
and further that the premises were not Of sufficient
value to pay both the membranes. The case was
argued to the jury by L. l.. Ormsbee and c. Inns
ley for the plaintiff, and by g. w. lIarman and r,
Perpoint for the defendant. The jury were i'll
structed by tho Court that if they believed that the
said Isaac was acting the agent Of the plaintiff
and that the note was paid, or purchased for the
plaintiff, it would Their be their duty to return
verdict for him but if they found the payment or
purchase was made by said Isaac on his own ac-
count, it would then be their dnty to estimate the
value of the mortgage premises, and if they were
sufficient to pay both membranes they should
return verdict for the defendants and if they
found them of less value, an application was to be
first made upon the second mortgage, which had
been foreclosed, and the balance only be applied up
on this note, in which case they would return their
verdict for the amount which would still remain
due after such application The jury under these
instructions returned their verdict for the defendants
Ormsbee s; Edecrton and Linsley for Plaintiff.
Potter, Hartman and Pierpoint, for Defendants
OF the causes assigned for trial on Wednesday,
The second day, the following were tried, viz
E. H. & D. Aiken This was n qui tam nc |
as ton for fraudulent con- |
VIM. Peck. veyance in which the testi-
mony on the part of the plaintiffs tended to show
that, previous to February 1915, one Harvey Briggs
Of Benson, was possessed of large amount of per-
mol nd bnJ cd Job+ 10 ~
siderable amount, and that about the middle of this
month he transferred to the defendant, who was his
father-in-aw, span Of horses worth about $4,000
and cutter worth from $50 to $50, which property
the defendant subsequently claimed that he had
purchased of the said Brirgs; that about the time
of this transfer the rest of Briggs personal property
was attached and sold upon writs in favor of his |
mother and brother, and that the defendants cir
cumstances were always somewhat limited and not
such as would admit Of his owning or purchasing |
property of the price and character of the horses and
sleigh in question. In order to show the indebted
ness of the said Briggs to the plaintiffs, testimony
was offered as to what the said Briggs had said or
admitted in converse ion between him ard the
plaintiffs, and this testimony, though objected to-
was admitted by the Court. The case was argued
TO the jury by c. Linsley and Z. N Briggs for the
plaintiffs and by L. c. Kellogg and R. Pierpoint for
the defendant. The Court charged the Jury that
the plaintiffs must have shown, LIST, that Briggs was
indebted to them at the time of this transfer but
that this might be shown by the admission of Briggs
or such other evidence rs would be sufficient TO |
charge said Briggs with such Indebtedness in n
civil action against him; and, 2dy, that the sale to
and purchase by defendant must have been with the
intent to keep it from the creditors of Briggs, and
this intent must have been participated in by both
Briggs and the defendant, and that the defendant
must have subsequently justified it, but that his
claim that he had purchased and paid for it, would
be a sufficient justification; that the circumstances
that the transfer made upon the eve of Briggs
fainre,-the relationship between the parties, the
property being such as the defendant was not nc
cuatemed to own deal in, the mprobability of his
having the ready means for making such pu,-
chase, &c. &C., were all pertinent to show fraud,
but that neither of them was in and of tsefconcu-
sive, but they were all to be taken and considered
together by the Jury, and if from all of them they