Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1856-10-01

property reasonable time and to 60 and !
request the plaintiff to take i, away before
defendant had a RICH, TO RESELL tina, the de-
PENDANTS notice to the plaintiff that he could
not have the potatoes, and that defendants
incapacitaung himself to perform the con-
tract by resale, superseded the necessity OF
demand
The Count ruled the points Of law princi-
pally as contended by counsel for the plain
tiff, and instructed the Jury to assess dam
ages for the plainlf,
The Jury returned verdict for the plain
iiif of S28. Defendant excepted to the rul-
ing of the Court.
II. f. Stoughton, c. N. Davenport. for
plaintiff, A. Sioddard, Bradley & kellogg,
for defendant.
No. So. S. BRADLEY Us 5. BRADLEY,
JR, 81. ais.
This was an action Of Trocer brought to
recover the value of certain number of
cattle, farming implements and household
furniture. Plea General Issue.
This was one of those unfortunate cases
between father and sons which sometimes
occur. IL appeared thar the father he'd Ia
ken third wife with whom there had been
some difficulty. that he had difficulty with her
himself and finally left her, and the properly
sued for, fell into hands of some Of the chill
dren, and out of this family difficulty, arose
this suit.
The plaintiff gave evidence tending TO
show that in 1854 he lived in Dummerston
and had in his possession the property sued
for, that he left and went to Winhall and
slaid awhile, afterwards returning and liv-
ing awhile in Braiteboro, and finally in the
Spring Of 1854, went to live with his son
Samuel who had at that lime purchased a
farm 10 Townshend. Without giving the
particulars of the testimony on The past of
the plaintiff, ii appeared in substance that
after living and working for his son in Town
shend awhile there arose difficulty between
them which resulted in the plaintiffs eav-
ing, and after leaving he demanded Of Sam
uel Jr., the properly which planuf left at
Dummerston some two or three years before,
and be claimed it had never come into his
possession but had remained in the possess
ion of his IONS, they dispos;ng of 1t as they
saw fit without in any way accounting to
/ -. r. Al. !. .s,.<,,..l. .kcra1f
| The defendants introduced evidence tending
to show that in 1852, plaintiff lived in DUN
merston on farm not his own, that the
property sued for was on that farm. that jus
before plaintiff left and went to Winhal he
gave to daughter portion Of the house
hold furniture, that when he left, his wife lief
taking with her all the furuiiure she brough
4ith her that plaintiff at the time he left
left the property not before disposed Of ii
the possession of Russell Bradley one of thu
defendants plaintiff saying that he had M
further use for it, and telling Russell 10 tax,
+ it and take care Of it or it would be attached
within twenty four hours that portion 0
the property was attached on the debts o
the plaintiff, and that defendants stepped il
and paid the debts and saved the proper,
attached from sale on exec ution that tht
property so attached remained in possession
Of defendants at Brattlehoro where it wa
taken soon after plaintiff left that plaintiff
returned and lived at Brattleboro and Town
J shend with one Of the defendants. and new
err made any claim to tie property until al
ter disagreement at Townshend in 1854
that most of the properly not attached wa
claims and disposed Of by daughter Q
! plaintiff and son now deceased, that III
property was of little or no value over am
: above the money paid out, and that tn
r plaintiff and two or three minor chldre
lived with and were partially supported b
: defendants for considerable portion of tb
I time after said properly came into thei
o hands.
= The Jury returned verdict for the Dc
PENDANTS.
E ]. Roberts and d. Kellogg for Plaintiff.
A. Stoddard and j. d. Bradley for d,
q PENDANTS.
e On Friday morning the Grand Jury cam
J in presenting four True bills two not foun'
e Having not completed their labors, the
. again went out.
o On Saturday A. NJ, they again came
u presenting few more bills and were di
9 charged by the Court
Y A jury were empanneled on No. SO.
Is T RHuDEs as. G. CHAMBERLAIN Ap'
but it was discovered that there were no pi
pers in court upon which totry the case, an
d the case went over The Court soon aft,
N adjourned until Monday.
On Monday the first case in regular ord
for the Jury was No. 80, SARAH FuRNIs
~ rs. c. D. READ, but No. 80, PLIMPToN 4
SOMERSET, was first called up. it being ;
action founded on injury occasioned by i
suffieiency of the highway in Somerset, Il
! counsel for the defendant requested 4
!. court for an order that The Jury make
: personal inspection of the highway agre
able to this request Jury was employ'
and sent in charge Of an officer to "view Il
!, ground
" No 80. FuRSIss Us. READ then came {
for trial
. Thi. was an action of JtcDnsnt, brought
. recover the seizin and possession of certa
tract of land situated IN OF near the villa
"A Of Jamaica. The writer heard but pc
ton of this case as The trial proceeded, a
., therefore is not able 10 report fully or part