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

defendant.
Holton w. Mussy.--Action for SANDER in four |
counts, and special pleas in Justification and de-
murrer. The case was ably and zcalously argued |
by Stoddard and Washburn for plaintiff, and |
Knowlton and Grant for the defendant and the de-
caratiou and pleas were subjected to minute and |
searching criticism The Court held the third |
count good and the plea to that count insufficient
and the case was remanded for trial
WHder vs.. Stafford ct ai-Whcrc the owner Of
a let's neighbor take her to keep through the
winter for her milk, and she is attached while thus
in his possession the property of third person,
the owner may maintain repleNin for her The
Court intimated that probably the man whose right
of keeping the COW for her milk had been interfered
with, might have brought the action. but the point
did not lilly arise in this case
motion made after one continuance to dismiss
the action for some defect in the replevin bond was
held by the Court be too late, aud they refused
to consider the point raised by that motion, Judg-
ment for plantif.-Davenpor for plaintiff; Follett
and Bradley & Kellogg for defendants.
Bouker VS. Harris.-Where a creditor gives up
to his debtor note upon receiving from the debtor
n note for n smaller sum signed by the debtors
wife, which latter note is afterwards paid from the
separate property Of the wife, the creditor cannot
afterwards maintain an action to recover the
mander Of the larger note, although the note Of the
wife when given did not bind her, and was of no
legal validity. The payment Of a part ofa debt
upon an agreement that such payment shall be re-
ceived in discharge Of the whole debt is not evil
dcnce of new promise to take the case out of the
statute of limitations. Judgment for defendant af-
frmed.- davenport for plaintiff; Flagg x Crosby
for defendant.
Nc DondH vs. Montague. a man makes
contract with the agent Of father to hire his mi
nor for a certain time Mt n certain rate Of wa
gcs, and stipuaes in the contract that he may dis
charge the boy at any time if he don't like him,
and before the expiration of the time tells the boy
he shall not keep him any longer on the contract;
and thereupon makes new contract with the boy,
giving notice to the father nor to his agent, and
the boy works out the time specified in the first
contract-held that the father may recover Of the
hirer the wages stipulated in the first contract. If
the hirer wishes to take advantage Of his right
to discharge the boy he must actually discharge
him and notify the father, without which he can
make no new contract with the boy: Held also
that contract to work for nine months is eouva-
lent to contract to work from such day TO such
day certain, and the contract is satisfied SO that
the servant recover his wages when the day ar
riyes, although he may have lost time, so that the
number Of days works will not make nine months /;
the servant is not bound to make up the lost time
after the expiration of the nine months, but the
loss is to be deducted from his wages. Judgment
FOR plaintiff aifrmed.-HI and Davenport Tor
plaintiff; Flagg Crosby for defendant.
Gorhdm VS.. Roberts ami sher-wherc the
owner of certain logs lying at the mill of a third
person contracted to sell them at much per foot,
board measure, and have them sawed at his own
expense, according to the directions Of the buyer,
after which they were to be measured to ascertain
the price, and the buyer gave directions to the mill
er how he wanted them sawed, ana said he had
bought the logs and afterwards tried to sell them
held that there was no delivery Of the boards. and
that until the logs sawed into boards and
measured, they remained the property of the SELL
er, and the purchaser after such saving and meas
1 uring having refused to accept them the seller
could maintain no action for the price. Judgment
n for the defendants. & Kellogg for plain
|. tiff; Howe for defendants.
G Fdrrar & Wife VS.. Houqrd, Err Appeal
n from decree Of the Probate Court. The iudg-
o ment OF the County Court affirming the decree Of
, the Probate Court was reversed and the case re-
t manded. D. Kellogg and Roberts for plaintiff
e Reyes & Howe for defendants.
II State vs.. Dariison When circumstantial evil
Y dence is relied upon to prove the corpus deficit
as well as to identify the criminal and some Of III,
J. circumstances tend solely to prove the crime ant
II others to identify the criminal, the County Cour
lie is bound, on request, to classify the evidence il
: charging the jury, and tell them what facts, if es
is tabished tend to only identify the criminal, an,
is what facts tend to prove that the crime charged
in has been committed at all. 1t is not enough fo
rs the Court to tell the jury that they must take al
y the circumstances proved, and form them oil to
L geher decide whether the crime has been commit
ted, and if so whether the respondent is guilty.
4 The verdict in this case was set aside and ney
of trial granted Knowlton, States attorney; j. u
J. Bradley for respondent.
10 Miller vs. Sawyer Bill in equity by a suret
al against his cosurety to obtain the benefit of som
securities received by the latter from their common
,r principal. The case was very ably argued b.
Reyes for the plaintiff and W. c. Bradley for de
If PENDANT The Court retain the case for advise
D. ment.
lie Bills Of divorce granted in the following ca
st ses
t; Loren Shepardson VS.. Rorana Shepardson, 70
desertion.
" Marion ". Toortellott vs. Frank Toortslioi
s. for desertion.
A Laura J. dtherton vs. John /. .qtherfon, fo
re- deserton.
al Harriet Hurd vs. Henry N. Hurd, for dcser
n ton and intolerable severity.
.fustn L. Wilder VS.. Philena Wilder, for d,
-, sertion and adultery
- U'iiiiam Hhitcomb VS.. Serena NJ IJhitcoml
for desertion.
Samuel Perham VS.. Elisa Perham, for desel
- ton.
Theresa L. Erans vs. Charles A. Epans, f
intolerable severity and adultery.
he WILMINGTON ITEMs-At village meeting la
| : oil o;vo