Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1855-04-28
IncAL INTELLIGENCE.

Londonderry vs.. .iHiorer-This was a pauper
case. 1t was admitted by the defendant that the
father Of the pauper had resided in their town for
a period Of seven Year., and had gAined a settle
ment there, under the statute, II he had previously
had a settlement in the State, but they denied that
such was the case. 1t was contended by the plain
tif that the father Of the pauper had gained a pre-
vious settlement in Reading. On this point there
was a good deal Of conflicting testimony, and a
large number Of octogcDrians and nonagenarians
were hunted out whose depositions were read in the
case. Verdict for plaintiff; exceptions by defen-
dant.
For plaintiff Butler L Knowlton, Stoughton &
Baxter; for defendant b. & G. D. Kellogg.
Wells vs.. WenirOrih.-This was an action
brought by a mortgage against the defendant for
quantity Of remnants Of machinery. old iron. nails,
&C.. which were left air the paper-mil of Green
& Fleming had been burnt. They were fshed out
Of the ruins, by some one, and were attached by
the defendant on a demand in his favor against
Green & Fleming, sold. and by him applied TO the
payment OF his debt. The plaintiff claimed to
hold them by virtue Of his mortgage. The court
charged the jury that the machinery. boilers and
presses were real estate and could be held by the
mortgage who, under this instruction Of the Court.
found 0 verdict for the plaintiff.
For plaintiff ]. d. Bridgman, D & G. b. Kel-
logg; for defendant stOughtOn & Baxter.
Willard vs.. Gooleaough.-This was an action
on a prOmisory rOte, on which the plaintiff claimed
there had been a payment Of $25, 90 and no more.
The defendant eOntended that he had paid thereon
the sum Of $780, 900. On this question there was a
good deal Of conflicting testimony, and the jury,
AFTER being out all night, failed to agree; and the
case passes over to the next term.
For plaintiff Z. Kirkland; for defendant Keyes
4 Howe, J. d. Bradley.
Clark vs.. observation-disclosures to recover dam
ages for taking and conveying away certain articles
of personal property Of the plaintiff. Defence that
the same was attached as the property of one Tully
Clark on q writ AGAINST him, Verdict s- tie plain.
tiff.
For plaintiff D. & @. B. Kellogg; for defendant
VIM. c. Bradley, A. stoddard.
HoiiOn VS.. H1itney.-This was an ~ejectment TO
secure the possession of a small tract Of land stu
ate in Putney, which the plaintiff claimed to hold
by right Of possession. and by exercising acts of
o,e, "''een years .erui'' ior 'ne
nen, anu ua"As'a assessor gao.
P Asys no"e,D.eu Aehosgi
laurence vs.. 0'on'eoo'o'-Acu against the
""n ' ro'Oser uamages Tor injuries sustained IRON
+" ae'e's on h'ghway. 'eroct ior the PAINFUL
anu manages assoc NJ szoo'
ior pain'in heyes ho"e' = !. "ashoorn;
'' us'Snuans - Draaiey, H. W. 0iarke'
. 'a"'y "am nOaa Ems
~ wv n y 'ne iAi-
~" p,,'A,e Nay.
bu,ld n new road IN all rosnsc,s oon.l 20 ,ho IA
wav. and the action was brought Cor The non-Dor-
earma,ca or ,b;s oon,-.o, Tho ..ta.... -
duced by the plaintiff tended to show that the new
road vas not 50 good as the old, was of a sleeper
grade, &C., and hence the terms Of the contract wore
not complied with. Defendants claimed that the