Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1858-03-06
LOCAL INTELLIGENCE.

CoURT REcoRD-The following cases complete
the list of cases argued and decided at the Februa
ny Term,
Jtillard VS. Gooienough.-The question in this
case before the jury was the amount Of certain
endorsement on n note, and at what time the fig
ures 1915 were written thereon. A witness en-
ployed to make an inventory Of some notes, nclu-
ding the one in suit. testified that the $50 was not
then on the note lie was then asked at what
amount he reckoned the note in his inventory The
Supreme Court held the question inadmssable, as
calling simply for the opinion Of the witness, and
renanded the case for a new trial-kirkland for
plaintiff; Keyes & Howe for defendants
Holrland vs. Acknowledgment wa. rendered
by the County Court on the Report of referee for
the defendant, and the plaintiff excepted to the adj
mission of certain testimony, but cannot afford
space to detail the facts necessary show the points
of law decided. Judgment affrmel.-Stoughton
x Grant for plaintiffs Brdgm,n for defendants.
Johnson ami Darts vs. Plimpton.-En this case
the Court held that principal defendant and
Trustee cannot join in bringing .fudita Quereia to
set asi de the judgment of Justice Of the Peace,
when the grounds Of objection to the judgment
against each are different and distinct for tire
Judgment may be good against one AMI not against
the other.-Stoddard for Plaintiffs; Butler &
Knowton for defendants.
PorerS VS.. Thoyer and Pcii.-Action for mo-
ney paid, brought by a surety ngaius; principal
and co-surety. The County Court allowed the
plaintiff to discharge Il principal and take judg-
against the surety for contribution; and this
Court sustained the judgment, holding that this
case came within the statute allowing plaintiffs in
actions contract to join as many defendants as
they please and take judgmen. against such as they
ca n prove liable.-Stoughton & Grant for plain
tiff; Butler & Knowlton for defendants
Harris VS.. Holmes Book account The oues-
tons in this case were as to the admssibility of
certain testimony received by the auditor under OBJ
jection but, As is usually the case in regard to
questions of evidence it requires too long recital
of facts to make the points ineligible for our space
Judgment for defendant affirmed Kirkland for
plaintiff, Stoddard for defendant
Perry vs.. HhHney. Husband and Wife brought
book account for services of wife before marriage
the wife died pending the suit The objections 20 the
further prosecution of the suit by the husband must
be made by plea or motion in the County Court,
it is not question for the auditor to pass upon.-
The Court intmated that the objection if properly
taken would have been fatal The surviving hus.
band is q competent witness before the auditor A
deposition used without objection before Justice
cannot be objected trial Of the case on appea
for matters of FORM Bradley & Kellogg for plain
tiG Stoughton Grant for defendant.
Pierce vs.. Niles was continued for re-argumep
the Court being divided in opinion Davenport fol
plaintiff; Bradley Kellogg for defendant.
Whitney VS.. Richardson's was argued and con
tnued to general term for Judgment.-W. c. Brad
ley for plaintiff; Stoddard for defendants
Church VS.. Church was submitted ON briefs with
out argument, so that We are unable to state tn
points made; and the Court said that they coul,
not find any question of law in the Report of tn
auditor for them to decide. Judgment for tn
plaintiff afirmed.-Campbell for PLAINTIFF Slough
ton Grant for defendant
Hoibrook VS.. Hoibrook.-Presented merely
question on the admissibity Of testimony and a
in other like cases and for similar reasons we ca,
only say that the judgment for the plaintiff was at
hrmed.-siodlard for plaintiff Bradley & kellogg
for defendants.
Mayo vs. Boiies.-This was assumpsit for wor
and labor in saving certain lumber and was refer
red, and the referee reported the facts found b.
him, and submitted to the Court the question c
the liability of the defendant. The County Cour
rendered Judgment on the report for the plaintiff
The Supreme Court held that they could not reyis
the decisions of the County Court questions
fact; that il the facts reported had any tendenc
to show promise by defendant to pay FOR the saw
ing the ultimate fact of such promise found by tn
County Court could not be questioned here that tn
suiiicieney of the evidence, provided it had any le
gal tendency to prove the fact in dispute. could nc