Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1860-03-03
LOCAL INTELLIGENCE.
County Of Windham, FobruUy 1871, 1850. Present
Hon. A. OWEN Adds. Presiding Judge;

Erasmus PHmpton vs. Somerset IT plaintiff
brought his action against Somerset for an injury al
legged to have occurred by reason of the insuiciency
| and want of repair Of highway in that town. The
referred on motion Of the plaintiff under slie
reference law of 1856. The referees reported in his
favor, and the defendant town subsequently claimed
trial by jury, which granted, and the plaintiff of
fered the report of the referee rnd acie evidence
of the facts found therein, to which the defendant OBJ
I jected, and it was excluded by the County Court,
| Judge Redfeld presiding, On the ground that the law
of 1856 unconstitutional to which the plaintiff
excepted The argued, but the Court re-
served their opinion, Judge Adds remarkng that rs
the case involved question on the constutionality
of a law, the Court preferred to suspend judgment
until they could consult the members of the Court not
| present at the hearing.
J. f. Butler Stoughton & Grant, for plaintiff; Dam
iel Kellogg, S. p. Flagg, for defendant.
| William Walker vs. Ereron d. lfner.-This was
an action against n collector Of School District Tor
evyng on property for non payment IF school tax.
Judgment for the defendant.
C. X Field for PLAINTIFF Davenport g. IIaskins for
defendant.
T. H. Fa,var and WE, apis. vs.. A. C. Ho'rard,
Er'or Of Chaplin H0rdrd-This appeal from
|
tate of Chaplin Howard among the cgatccs. The will
provided that whatever should be Hereafter given by
the testator to any of his children BY way Of advance
ment, should be rcckoned towards the share OF such
child under the will TIE Probate Court adjudged
that Mrs Fanar had received by way of advancement
after the making Of her fathers will sl51l "A from
which decree Mrs FaTar and her husband appealed -
The case had been nrgued twice before the present
] arm pIt ,n ~, u. A. tI.t
time on the third argument the Court decided that
Ms Farrar had received but ss1s, go as advancement
:. Roberts, d. Kellogg, for plaintiffs Asa Keycs r..
I. Washburn, for defendant.
ProJate Court, H. Holmes, Prosecutor, VS.. y H.
| Brigm0n, IT, dL-This was an action on n Probate
bonl. The plaintiff recovered nominal damages ST.,
and the County Court allowed him only the same
sum IS costs to which he excepted claiming full costs
The Judgment of the County Court was affirmed.
d. kellogg for plaintiff; A. keycs for defendant
join Ilibier vs.. S. T. Hecdertoad, Tgler l.. Jln-
son, If-Johnson trus,ccd by three creditors Of
OF eaherhcad, Of which the plaintiff in this case
was the bird sjn order. johnson being indebted to
Weaheread, by an arrangement between himself and
Weaihcrhud and the first two creditors, paid ihcir
demands ad they did not enter their action. in Count.
This paymer exhausted all the funds in the trustee
hands, but tn, Supreme Court held. that he must pay
over again to te present plaintiff who had perfected
bis lien by judgment, and tina, hi. payments TO The
first two creditorcould not be justified.
i. Kirkland fo' plaintiff; George Howe f,r The
trustee.
Charles Torn vs. Gorge L,rcl md T., - o. 'hs case
the Court held that w,cu two mon, iers ar. ,n-
gagged in joint undertaking, all ln ue lr.r... 3d.
thereof acquire articles of t..r..,.,f t...... l
by the terms Of their asfcmcn; anr o. .e .r
tween them IN certain lr,ioriiou'. a1cI AT.
ses OF the JOINT ad'etiuc have le'n iaa a... a.h
properly is put into ne hands o. ta.rl irr' lir
safe, and Is sold for tlc benefit 81 ali iie pare sr
esied, such third persn cannot b. h,'l ne trustee 81
one of ;he persons jointly interested IN DE una,rias
ing The adventure nay not constitute the paric, 20
1t partners strictly speaking but sill the amount Of
the interest Of each parry cannot be asccrianed uau
settlement OF the VINCE matter, which cauno; be
done under the trustee pieces.
Stonghton Grant, 70 plaintiff Bradley & Kel-
loge Tor defendant.
Aaron Fulton Us. RoJerf IHey-When all action is
referred by agreement of par6es and the defendant,
holds promisNory note acans, the Plaintiff such note
cannot be allowed to him by the referee unless he has
previously plead the same in ofisc in the County
|
George Howe for plaintiff; Bradle, & Kellogg, for
defendant
Hef"s ero''er w. Joshua HarT1s-Whcn contract
Is mace Tor the sale OF 100 map' trees, for II GER
IAN prlce, one-haii TO be delivered ut the vendce's
mill the next winter and the remander in the win
Ter following, TO be paid for in certain time after
delivery tins Is dvisble contract, and the vendor
having delivered one-hat the first winter and the re-
mainder the second winter, may maintain an action
Tor one-hai the price when the term Of credit rcck
oning from the delivery Of the first lalf Of the
has expired, although the term OF credit, If reckoned
from the delivery of the last half has not expired
VIM. II. Follett for plaintiff; r. W. Clarke for de-
PENDANT
cdirt" Church and 'Vevs. Se1btry q. White ef al
Where party Is in pcaccahe possession of lands,
claiming title, though involved another person, though
The actual owner, cannot remove HIM by force from
such possession, and battery ocGnsioned by at
tempt so to do, resisted by the occupant, be
Just'hed.
L. Kirkland Tor pialnt'ili d. hiNbail, Geo. Howe,
Tor defendants
Ido'ha Codieish vs.. Ezra Peirce, Jr.-Where a COM
| is Ia ha+,,.