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

for the transaction of business with one
of the guests of the house; that upon
his entering Buck came into the room
and asked him what he was there for
that his response was be was there upon
business; that thereupon Buck ordered
him out, and he replied that he would 90
cut when he had finished bis business
that upon this, Buck with several others
whom he called to his assistance clinched
hold of Grout, and after something of a
tussel they all went out of the house to-
gether.
1t was in proof that when the clinch
commenced there was something said
about revolver, but Mr.. Grout testified
that though he at that time had one, he
did not attempt to draw it. He testified
that he had carried one for some weeks
before had carried one since previous
assault upon him in the street. AS soon
as they were out of the house Buck with
others released their hold and disappear
ed, whereupon Mr.. Grout went back into
the house and accomplished his business.
and was about leaving when they clinch-
ed him second time, one of them by
his hair. He suggested to the one who
had him by the hair that if he could do
just as good work it would accommodate
him if he would take hold of his collar
About this time Mr.. KimbalI, deputy
sheriff, interfered, and the tumult was
quoted.
The only questions in the case seemed
to be of legal character. The court
charged the jury in substance that no
person could claim the privileges of a
guest at hotel unless he came as guest
expecting to pay for the services render
ed HIM by the keeper of the hotel, but
one might enter it without being tres
passer, but if he was not there as a
guest, and had no business with any one
who might then be a guest at the same
house, he must depart on being so re-
quested by the proprietor. But if any
one has business with a person who is a
guest at hotel, he has right to enter
it and remain reasonable time to tran
sact that business, but if while there he
be requested by the proprietor to leave,
he must fairly make it known to such
proprietor that he has business there with
one of his guests, designating whom, and
what his business is, or he would have no
right to remain.
Under the charge OF the court the jary
returned q verdict of not guilty.
Cooper l. Bartlett for the government
Stoddard and Sartle for the respondent.
Hutchins, Hurd & Co. v. j. A. Pad.
dock ct. al.-This vas an action on some
notes given by Col. Paddock in 1855 to
the plaintiffs, and signed by these defend
ants as sureties. Besides these notes
there was due the plaintiffs from Col.
Paddock balance upon book account.
Col. Paddock being indebted to the plain
tiffs in this manner, forwarded to them in
Boston at different times large quantities
of ashes to be applied on his indebted
ness to them. In this situation of things
Col. Paddock died insolvent, and these
notes were put in suit against the suitors.
The suitors claimed that the ashes for
warded as aforesaid should have been
applied on these notes and not upon the
open account as the plaintiffs did apply
them, because they claimed that the ac-
count was not due at the time the ashes
were forwarded. 1t did not appear in
evidence that Col Paddock gave the
plaintiffs any directions as to whether the
ashes should be applied on the notes OF
upon the account; and the plaintiffs
claimed as matter of law that as there
were no directions given by Col. Pad.
dock they had right to apply them as
they might elect, either upon the notes oil
on the accounts, and this the court
charged the jury was the law, and if they
found the account was due at the time the
ashes were forwarded, then the plaintiff:
would have a right to apply them on the
account as they did, which would leave
the notes unsatisfied.
The jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiffs, the clerk to assess the damages
Colby for plaintiffs Redfeld for de.
PENDANTS.
II. j. Cross V. Henry Barras ct. al
ap't.-Assumpsit for money paid out by
the plaintiff in the settlement of suits in
which the defendants were the parties ii
interest, though not of record. The fol
lowing seem to be the facts in the case
The defendants brought a suit against one
Dana and attached property which one
Harding claimed; the plaintiff was the