Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1856-03-08

and Hills sued him in trcspo-s. Tho County Court
held that the machinery was part Of the real cs-
tate, and passed by the mortgage, to which the
defendant excepted. The Judgment was reversed
and the case rcmandcd for new trial.
}. D. Bridgman and D. a q. D. Kellogg for
plaintiff; II. 4. stoughton fordofenlant
WILLIAM II. JOY vs. JonS wAiKER.-Jcy sued
Walker in an action Of account An Auditor was
appointed who male his report, after which joy
moved for leave to amend his declaration by inscr-
ting additional items Of claim. The County Court
allowed the amendment to be made. to which Wal
ker excepted. The Supreme Court decided that
the amendment could not be permitted after report
made, vacated the order allowing the amendment,
aud ordered the 10 be continued to the Circuit
Term for trial upon the original declaration and
the report. Several other questions were made and
argued, but they became immaterial by the deeis-
ion on the allowance Of the amendment.
J. Roberts and Butler s Knowlion for plaintiff;
A. Stoddard and c. X. Field for defendant.
MonsE CRANE vs.. sroDDARp MILLER.-The
submission to arbitrator required the award TO be
made aud published on or before n certain day
named. The arbitrator made and published their
award to one Of the parties before the day named,
aud the other party before that day, and before
they had notice Of the award. revoked. The Coun-
ty Court held that the revocation too late and
the Supreme Court affirmed the Judgment, hold
ing that publication to one party was publication
to both.
L. O. Mead and D. & O. b. Kellogg for plain
tias; Reyes & Howe and J. D. Bradley for defen-
nants.
G. c. Hall vs.. RoGER wADswoRrn .--This was
assumpsit for and occupation, and was referred
by agreement; the report Of the Referee was ac-
eepted aud judgment rendered thereon for the
plaintiff by the County Court, to which the defend
ant excepted. Several questions we're made but
the point chiefly relied on was that the County
Court had not original Jurisdiction, 1t appearing
on trial that the plaintiff claimed balance due for
rent Of less than 500. The Judgment Of the
County Court was affirmed, bu, no opinion was de-
liverci in the case, the Court merely ordering the
entry to be made
Keyes s Howe Tor plaintiff; E. Kirkland for de-
fendsnt
ELfAKM ANIpoS IS JonS AiKES.-This was
) .fuifia Qusreia to set aside judgment rendered
} by Justice Of the Peace in favor Of Aiken vs.
Amidon. The substance ofthe complaint was that
on the return day Of the Justice writ, Amilon was
sick, and scu, agent to the Justice with proof Of
that fact, and to ask continuance. but that Aiken
persuaded tbe Justice that Amidon was merely
playing possum,'' aud was not sick at all; and
20 tnposed upou the Ju,tjcc as "a ;nd,c. him IN
refuse the continuance and render ,udcneu, far
Aiken. The County cour, held that the complaint
set forth no sufficient ground for relief. and the
! supreme Court were Of the same opinion.
A. Soidard Tor PlAinuhi H. T. sloughion for
Defendant.
JAMS s. Bnowx va wu,rx,y 7 U,-cuoocx
This ia the palm Leaf case, which ha. s,.i,s ~
mueh in,sres, 4, az, .o,,h -, - A.. GO.
Brovn m.n,,r,.,,,.r .e,,a,,, l., =, tI;,.,..,
have o,,.n,;,, - L., -. -. ..,..-, :,
u.e ar rs,urD V,.s,,t ia ~, 49,. !, ii -,
Brown CALEB e.r !, /, -. fn,na - 4, r,;,ao-od
and SMILED The Co,,n,v co,,r, hsla ,h., M. v,.s
/ a bailmept demandin, the exercise oe ordinary
care. and the question submitted 70 the Jury was
whether Hitchcock had in fac, erersiskl .ueb care
A great deal of ,estiuonv was nroanced IN ho,h
sides, to the admission Of portions Of which the
defendant excepted. judgment, was rendered in
the County Court for the plaintiff, and the defend
ant carried the case 10 the supreme Court hv ex-
cep,ops chiefly to the admission Of certain tes,i.
many We cannot make tho ou.st,ors aoc;l.d in
'eiig'oie Wi'honta longer story than we harespaee
Tor The Judgment OF the County court was at
hrmed.
Butler knoWlion and H. L. s.oughion Tor
plaintiff Z n Davenport and D. y u D. he'iogs
Tor defendants
MANSION HoLrox VS.. MoRoAx WHITNEY. =
This was an ejectment for small strip Of land.
married woman owned farm; her husband in
making fence enclosed strip Of adjoining land,
and it remained enclosed some thirty years The
present plaintiff now owns the farm, and the de-
PENDANTS having moved the fence back to where il
M -ht or;gnailv 10 have han h,,;i, a.. .i.;...r