Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1855-05-05
LOCAL INrELLIcENCE.

treH JThnncy.--This was an octlOh OF eJeotiheh''
and upon the deeds produced by the parties, tho
Court decided that the plaintiffs we're entitled to
recover, and the case went to the jury upon the
question Of damages, and verdict was retained
for sl98.74 damages. The defendant reviewed.
A stoddnd, Reyes Howe for plaintiff d. @.
d. Kellogg for defendants
Lvman Brotra, Jr. IS Hing d. Charier.-This
was an action Of trespass for taking the plaintiffs
wagon. The defendan, justified the taking as Col
lcctor Of School District in Marlboro, for taxes.
Various objections were taken to the suiicicney Of
the proceedings Of the District. and the collector
but the one which proved fatal was TINT It did not
appear Of record tliatihcrc was any warning Of the
meeting ut which the taxes were voted. The Court
directed verdict for the plaintiff and the Jury as
scsse'l the damages At S2Olf.
j. ID. Bradley, c. X. Field for plaintiff; r. W.
Clarke for defendant
.asaph RnapPv vs.. T0irn Of .Marlboro.-This was
an action Of covenant brought to recover damages
for the breach Of what the plaintiff claimed was
covenant for "quict enjoyment" in q certain lease
executed by the town Of Marlboro, by It's select
men, 10 one Jonathan Rising, In 1895. The town
by this lease, conveyed to said Rising 200 acres Of
the land granted to said Town, by the Royal Gov
enor Of N Hampshire, for the purposes Of schools
! This land was described ID the lease as bounded
on the north by the north line of said school right,
on the east by the east line on the west by the west
line, &C." This land passed. through q number of
grantees until 80 acres, IN the northeast Of
the town Of Marlboro finally rested in the plaintiff
I II appeared in evidence that in 1919, one Oliver
Gilett, Of Dover, brought his action Of ejectmcnt
to the sezn and possession Of part Of this
land, and the mesne prohtsi and finally, at the
April Term, 1853. Of the windham County Court,
he recovered Judgment against the paintif for the
possession Of III rods with damages and costs.
amounting to some $40 To recover this sum,
with his own costs. counsel fees and extraordinary
expenses, this action was brought
The fact which the plaintiff endeavorcd to e.
tablish that the land from which be was eyic;-
Ell by Gillett, was originally inclosed in the land
leased to Rising. The defence rested principally
upon a number Of questions Of law, raised by
counsel in the course Of trial. Verdict for plain
tia Damages 1925.
Davenport and soughton, for plaintiff W. C.
and J. D. Bradley, for defendants.
Hssiniasier vs. Putney,--This was IN appeal
by Putney from an order Of removal Of one
Linz Daggett from Westminster to Putney.-
Dagrctt's original settlement was in Putney,
whence he removed to Westminster in 1929, and re-
sided there long enough to acquire a settlement,
provided the period Of six months during which he
went to work in South Gardner Mass, could be
reckoned as part Of such residence.
1t was claimed by Westminster that when he left
for Mass, he broke mp his home in that town, with
intention ofreurning; while Putney insisted that
his absence was for temporary purpose, and did
interrupt the continuity Of his residence-and Of
this opinion the jury, who found that Daggctt
was unduy removed.
W. c. Bradley, D. & G. B. Kellogg, for plaintiff;
Kirklandand Kimball for defendant,
4 nd r. HIlder vs.. Lyman ". Jchnson.--This
, action Of trespass for quantity Of chairs,
: which were taken by the defendant. acting a
Q constable having writ to serve, and who under
9 took to attach them the property Of Gates.
II was conceded that the writ which the defendant
had was filled MP by HIMSELF and was void by the
statute. The defendant seemed to have discovered
v the impurity Of his process in few days and re-
, turned the chairs to the place whence he took them
n and notified the plaintiff thereof The plaintiff
: however did not consent 20 receive them back hav-
8 ing in fact commenced his action before such re-
Il turn. Under the rulings Of the Court, the case
II went TO the Jury on the amount of the damages,
II resulted in verdict for the plaintiff for $i7.g2
k Butler KnOwlton, for plaintiff; R. ". Smith,
A stoddard, for defendant.
=. c. Taft vs.. Um. II. Joy.-This was an action
!. Of assumpsit on promssory note brought in the
name Of the indorsee. The defendant claimed thai
the dote had been mrtilatel by cutting of an in.
dorsement, that the date had been placed in diff
ierent part Of the instrument, that the note hal
been altered by adding the word interest, and
and that the Of one aticsting witness had beer
:, added since the execution of the note. The Cour
!, charged the jury that II they found the note haC
been altered since II made it would render til,
instrument void. Verdict for plaintiff sii.9i.
For plaintiff Field, j. d. Bradley and stoddard
- for defendant Roberts, Butler 4 Knowlton.
o Paul Streeier VS.. Noyss Sireeier ct ais.-Thi
e was action of ejectment an account of the non
: fnlfment Of the conditions Of bond executed b,
l. the defendant. goodly share Of the inhabtant
81 Of Vernon were summoned up to Court IS witness
10 e. The case was on trial when our report closed
The County buildings have been wonderful,
improved within the past year The Court Hous
e has been rernodeled and fitted up in admirabl
m condition. The lower story contains an office 70
,e the Clerk, to which. is attached fire proof room
thar aud nfha