Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1860-07-27

PiaihAlh u H. ESbliSS anu SSsSc NOOP-
er for defendant.
VIM. Harvey vs., Joseph Scott, apt
This was an action in trespass against q
constable for taking property on a war
rant for the collection of taxes. The
plaintiff had been living in Craftsbury,
but few days before the first day of
April removed therefrom. After his re-
moval he was listed in that town and the
above property was taken to satisfy the
taxes made out on that list.
The defendant claimed that it was for
the express purpose of saving list in
Craftsbury that be left the place; that he
had no real intention of permanently
changing bis domiciI, The trial was by
the court, who found that it was his in
tention to remain away from Craftsbury
when he left, but that he left when be did
for the purpose of avoiding a tax in
Crafsbury. Judgment for the defendant,
and exceptions by the plaintiff.
Prentiss for plaintiff; Paddock and
Redfeld for defendant
N. 7. Shcafe VS.. John G. Parlin.-
Assumpsit on a note. The defendant
signed the note as surety. He pleaded
the general issue and the statute of lin.
itatious, and also set up on trial that the
principal signer of the note had paid sc
or 70 cents for an extension of the time
of payment 1t appeared on trial that
it was more than six years from the time
that the note was signed to the time thai
it was put in suit, but the plaintiff relied
upon a new promise by the defendant
that he would pay the note.
The defendant claimed that the plain.
tiff had received small sum of the prin.
cipal signer of the note in consideration
that he, the plaintiff, would forbear col
lecting the note of him when it should
fall due, and that in consequence of this
he as surety was discharged from liabi
ity. 1t was in proof that a small sun
had been paid the plaintiff, but it was no
apparent that it was in consideration o
his forbearance. The defendant contend
ed that he had never renewed the note
I by new promise, but the court held diff
ferently and gave judgment for the plain
tiff.
Steele and Redfeld for plaintiff; Dick
erman for defendant.
Samuel B. Ryder VS.. Kelley g. Rob
erts.-Action for breach of covenant
Plaintiff covenanted to cultivate from on,
to two thousand hills of hops and delive
the avails thereof to the defendants, an,
the defendants agreed to pay thereto
II IL cents per pound. The contrac
was for four years. 1t appeared in evi
dence that the plaintiff at the time of ma
king the contract had about 700 hills OF
his farm, and as he claimed for the pur
pose Of fulfilling his contract he hire
other yards, so that in all he had nearl
two thousand hills.
The defendants insisted that the plain
tiff did this because hops had fallen, an
he could hire the yards at a chea rate
and make a large profit on the hop
raised. The defendant further insiste
that he had no right to do this, but by tn
terms Of the contract was compelled t
cultivate all the hops on his own land
The plaintiff offered the defendants som
hops which he had raised on the yarC
which he had hired, but the defendar
refused to accept them on the groun
thai under the terms of the contract the
were not obliged to.
Tue court held that under the contra,
they would be compelled to receive thel
provided the plaintiff acted in good fat
) in hiring these yards, and not for the pu
pose of practicing fraud upon the defen,
ants, and submitted the case to the iur
on these grounds. The jury returned
verdict for the plaintiff for $4,000 an
costs. Exceptions by the defendants.
Cooper &c Bartlett for plaintiff; F.
wards and Redfeld for defendant.
Andrew Forbes VS.. Austin L. Foste
-Irover for quantity Of hops attacht
as the property of Forbes, and receipt,
by Portus Baxter, who afterwards pa
for them. They were taken and sold [
Foster, and in this action Forbes sues
p recover their value. Trial by the cour
judgment for defendant.
Edwards and Dickerman for plaintiff
e hedheld and Steele for defendant.
. Timothy Dudley VS., Ira Sturtevant.-
j Sclre tactas on recognizancer. I'll
t defendant had recognized to the plant
/ in behalf of Hiram Cass in a suit betwe,
t said Cass and the plaintiff in this actio
The defendant had rendered the plant
the amount Of costs which had accru,
, under his ,.aocc,;.,o l.. Il