Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1860-08-31
Supreme Court.

No. 5. David Cass VS.. David An
'derson; Defamation; trial Deem
Der term, 1859, and Judgment for
Iplf. Exceptions by def. Argu-
ment in this cause on the exceptions.
Judgment of the county court af-
frmed. Cooper & Bartlett for plff;
,Prentiss and Redfeld for deft.
No. 6. A. Fl. Williams vs.. S. Shep-
hard and trustee and claimant. Judg-
ment for the plf., Dec. term, 1859.
Exceptions by the deft. Judgment
of the county court affirmed. Sar-
tile for pIff. Edwards and Stewart
for def.
No I. D. P. Walworth VS.. Alex.
lSeaver. Judgment for plf. in the
county court. Exceptions by def.
Judgment of the county court af-
frmed. Prentiss and Redfeld for
: plf.; Cooper and Gleed for def.
No. 8. l. NJ Fl. Cochran VS.. Rich
ardson & Whipple. Action on book.
Audited by 1. N. Cushman. Judg-
ment on the report, for the deft.,
Dec. term, 1859. Exceptions by plff.
Judgment of the county court af-
5 frmed. Prentiss for plff. Paddock
/, and Steele for def.
No. 10. Seth Blodgett VS.. the
: town of Lowell. Action on book.
r In the county court, judgment was
T. rendered, on the auditors report
i0 for the plff. Exceptions by deft
10 Judgment affirmed. Cooper & Bart
: lett for plf.; Child & Benton fol
% def.
- No. II. G. R. Holmes VS.. VIM
is Hail. Judgment for the plff., JUNE
il term, 1860. Exceptions by def
mt Judgment affirmed. Sheafe for plff
n Steele for deft.
rs No. IA. Augustus Kimball vs.. G
er ". Leland. Action an book. TIL
er county court rendered Judgment, o.
|" the auditors report, for the plf
- juno term, 1859. Exceptions by def
- The case was argued this term, bu
III the court gave no opinion. The
. reserved the case for the specia
M term to be holden at Montpelier
ng, Nov. Sartle & Tucker for the plff
ice w. W. Grout for deft.
to No. 16. II. J. Cross VS.. Hem
hat Barras ct. al. June term, 1866
the Judgment for the plff. by the count
a'- court. Judgment affirmed. Chi
- & Benton for plf.; Cooper & Bar
he, lett for def.
No. II. Barton VS.. Irasburg
Pauper case. Judgment for plff.
the county court. Judgment affirme
Sartle and RedfeId for plf.; Pre-
tiss and Cooper for def.
= No. II. VIM. Hovey vs.. JOSE
oro Scott. Judgment for def. by t
this county court. Judgment afirme
are Prentiss for plff; Redfeld for de
iler, No. 10. Samuel B. Ryder VS.. K
que ley & Roberts. Judgment for p
hing Exceptions by the deft. Judgme
non, affirmed. Cooper & Bartlett
AIRY plh. Edwards and Redfeld for de
Il az No. 20. L. c. Moore VS.. Albt
Stevens. Action on book. Audit
n :, by W. D. Wilson. Judgment on I
all report, for the def, in the cour
court. Argument this term. G;
held for the special term. Ora
/! and Wilson for plff.; Sumner a
Benton for def.
No. 81. B. B. Jackman VS.. Jc
mod Little. Book account. Judgmt
+bo on the report of the auditor, for
= = plf. Exceptions by def. Judgm
II affirmed. Prentiss for plff. Coo
-. and Amasa Bartlett for deft.
and W - ~ pun oiii'' ''ie 'iieiu
Audited by W. W. Grout. Ju
c. ment, on the report of the audi
evil for the plff. Exceptions by the d
vi to the auditors report; also to
- ruling of the court below. Ju
;. ment of the county court affirm
;. &c and the auditors report sustain
meet Prentiss for plff. Cooper & Bart
enjoy Tor deft'
The facts in the above cases "
reported IN our County Court
por+c Fo. lost limo arJ noooY,