Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1860-07-06


might take bis own time and not come on
purpose to make the delivery; and finally
that be offered to deliver the bond 10 the
defendant and defendant refused to take
it, and would have nothing to do with it,
and soon after sold the Wagon for which
the bond was to complete the payment.
The defendants testimony tended to
prove that the defendant was to take the
bono, (Which was bond for deed of
land, some payments having been made
for the land-and to apply upon the wag-
gon contract such sum as the plaintiff S
interest in said bond might be when as
certaiDed, but that the delivery of the
bond was delayed, though the defendant
often urgently requested its delivery, and
that finally the defendant notified the
plaintiff that unless he delivered the bond
in three weeks he would have nothing to
do with it, and would rot accept it after
that time, and that it was not delivered
nor offered to be until said time had long
past, and that afterwards be sold the
Wagon in question.
The jury returned a verdict of not
guilty.
Cooper IL Bartlett fer plF; Redfeld
and Colby for def.
Nathaniel West V. D. P. Walworth ct.
al-Trespass for taking a quantity of
hops which plaintiff had bought of one
Smith, and which were still on the prem
Uses of said Smith. Defendant claimed
that he had bought the same hops, and in
pursuance of this claim moved them to
his store in Coventry. Smith supposed
the plaintiff and defendant were in COM
pany, and as he had sold the hops to the
plaintiff thought there Was nothing wrong
in delivering them to the defendant, that
by so doing he vas delivering them to
the firm. The plaintiff and defendant
however were not in company, and after
the defendant had taken the hops to his
store, the plaintiff demanded q return oil
them to the hop house from whence they
were taken. The defendant became
satisfied that he had no right to the hops
and offered to return them to the plaintiff
on his premises in Coventry village. The
plaintiff declined receiving them at any
other place than at the hop house.
The court charged the jury that the
plaintiff had a right to demand q return
of the hops to the place from whence they
were taken, and that he was not bound tc
receive them anywhere else.
The jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff of S26,29 damages and costs.
Cooper d Bartlett for plff; Prentis.
and E. H. Bartlett for def.
B. H. jerome v. Elisha Jenne-Thi:
was an action on the case against high
sheriff for the alleged negligence of his
deputy. 1t appeared from the evidence
that the plaintiff in this action herebfort
sued out a writ against one Barber, anG
put it into the hands of Ira A. Bailey
a deputy sheriff, for service. The plain
tiff claimed that he told Baily to follow
said Barber and attach his team and load
, Baily claimed that his instructions from
, the plaintiff were to follow Barber, tina
r he would probably find him at Richford
/ at the inn of one Powell, where he would
; be put up for the night; to consult will
; said Powell and if Barber wanted hi
: team receipted that he might take Pow
ell tor receiptor, or any other man tina
, Powell should recommend. Powell him
, self declined receipting the team, but rec
commended another man as being respon
sible. He was considered responsible a
, the time but soon after failed. whereof,
: the plaintiff lost his debt. The sheriff
! claimed that in this particular he had fol
lowed the instructions of the plaintiff, an,
$ having SO done he was not responsible 70
the result.
Trial by jury verdict for defendant.
, j. Cooper and S. B. Colby for pli
: Wilson and Redfield for def.
j. H. Hull v, W. G. Norris.-This wa
an action against an officer for defectiv
service. The plaintiff in this action bro
a suit against a man by the name O
Cobb. and Bisbee and Davis as trustee
OF said Cobb, and put the writ into de
fendant's hands for service. He serye
1t upon the trustees, and upon going t
the principal defendant, he the defendan
said he would accept service, but the &C
ceptance was nowhere stated upon tn
writ. The writ was returned TO the ius
70 tlce, and 1t not appearing thereupon tina
the defendant had received notice. tn
suit was dismissed, whereby the plaintiff
; lost his security upon the funds in tn
hands Of the trustee, and was oblired +