The Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1837-1867, 1858-09-04
.nrrcms 0enrl, Ansa.l Isrm, Isas.

I Commissioners. Petition was dismissed.
Willard 4 Ross for plF Bartlett Tor dofI
No. .. Lufhcr Hcanety, Alice p, BameH
, Was petition for divorce, alleging as cause
intolcrabo severity on the part Of the lbelce'
The petition was dismissed, as not showing a
case within the statute.
stoddnrd for PHI,
No. 8. Lrinda w. F1ht " George Fi1L
Wa, q petition for alimony, Che Court having
granted a divorce last year, which was al
lowed at $1,000, aud the household furniture
which the petitioner carried 10 the peutionec
on their marriage.
sladc * Edwards for plG Bartlett for
def.
No. O. Darm Porers y, Eucim DuisoH
It als., Was heard and continued to the gen
eral term for decision.
no. o. Samuel bruce y. Lorcn chase, Jr,
Was an action Of trespass for house dis.
trained for taxes ia school district in Bar
net The school district elected one Clarke
committee, at their annual meeting who had
returned from California the June previous
and had no grand list in the district lie
accepted Of the office at the time, but alter.
wards when his eligibility was called in qucs-
tion hc thought himself ineligible and rcius-
ed to act Whcrcupon the district called an
other meeting and elected another committee
man hy whom the tax in question was assuss-
cd. The Court held the laX to be legal, and
that Clarke, having no let in the district,
was not Hable to be taxed within the mean
ing of the statute, aud therefore not voter
and ineligible to the office Of committee,
thereby affirming the decision Of the Court
below.
Potts 4 Underwood for pin. Davis q Hale
for dch
No. -. Ira ByorH y. To,rn oC NSrark,
Was ap action OF assump,t for d6ctoring
one Circuit, as town paupcr. It appeared
that circuit WAS o man in INDECENT crcum-
stances and broke his limb, when the pin
was called upon to attend him as physician
which he did. On his third visit the plH
told Circuit he could not continue to doctor
him unlcss he had some security for his pay,
and suggested 10 Circuit TO throw himself up
ON the town for aid, which Circuit consented
to do at FIRST, but afterwards refused so to do .
But the pin. called dpon the oyerseer Of the
poor OF suiri town on mis- way h0me, and rep
resented to him that he came at the request
81 orCury' aud could uoT doctor UfcuUt0ngcI
unless the town would pay him. To which
the oyersccr replied that if Circuit was in
need OF assistance, lac supposed the town
would pay the pin but he must be reasonable
in his charges. The Court held that a man
could not be made pauper against his will,
and that the oycrsccr had no power to bind
the town. except in the case of paupcr, and
then not tin che ovcrsecr had examined in
to the condition of the applicant and found
by personal inspection that the applicant WAS
in need Of assistance, thereby reversing the
decision of the County Court
Chadwick for pf. Z. A. Cahoon for
dcn.
No 10. To'cn Of RYcgotc Y. To,m Of
IiidrdsJoro. This was question arising on
the removal of paupcr from Rycgatc to
Mara2hase- IAe-fe'tr-r- resided in
Rycgate II years, but Rycgatc oontendcd
that he was not of sufficient intellect to gain
a residence under the statute, and the jury
found the fact so. Wnrdsboro claimed that
if the pauper was not of sufficient intellect to
gain n residence, he could not be of sufficient
intellect to "come to reside" in Rycgatc with
in the meaning of the statute and therefore
the pnuper was unduly removed. In this
the Court last wear sustained Wartlsburo.
The case Of last year also found that the le-
gal settlement of the pauper was in Wards
boro. The pauper being adiudgcd to have
been urduly removed, in the County Court,
Wardsboro was allowed, under the statute
to tax in his costs $lls.l7 for keeping tho
pauper during the tendency of the suit, or,
in other words, to recover of Rycgrtc for
keeping her own pauper. This decision of
the County Court, this Court held was agree
able to the letter OF the statute, but contrary
to the spirit Of the whole chapter of paupcr
law when taken together, and therefore re-
verscd-it
Davis for PHI. Peck & Colby fqr,dC1i. =
No. To- lothian +. Sto,ceH u. Chaylt,
Roberts. apt, Was an action Of trcsp9ss fara
wagon which dcft. had attached and sold as
the property Of son Of plG. 1t appeared
that plif told def. that his son furnished
part ofshc materials for the wagon and that
they owned it together whereupon the deft.
Immediately attached it, but plG. knew moth
ing of the design Of deft. to attach the wagon
at the time he made the statement. The plT
admitted this was SO on the trial, but claimed
that after the building of the wagon and be-
fore the attachment, he had bought his sons
interest in the wagon. The def. claimed the
plR should, under the circumstances, be es
topped from denying his sons interest in the
wagon. Bat this Court held with the Coun-