Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1860-09-29
LOCAL INTELLIGENCE.

LOCAL INTELLIGENCE.
windham County Court --Sopt. Term, 1890.
Hon. Isaac f. REpFiELD, Chief Justice, presiding.
Hon. MARSHALL NEWTON,
Hon. Ira GooDHUE Assistant Justices.
Aldrd Akely VS.. Gmitoyd-This WIS an action on
the case for damages sustained in passing over defcn-
dant's bridge running brook the Gdi of Jan,
1850. The plnutif claimed that while passing said
bridge with his team with load Of hay, he turned
around to if he was getting on with his team well
and stepped into hole 10y the side ofhe railing and fell
over the edge of the bridge eleven feet on the Nk
and ice below and that he sustained injuries to his
spine and otherwise from which he has not yet
ercd The defendants admit the plaintiff fell over the
bridge and was injured somewhat, but claimed that
their bridge sufficient and that they not liable.
For plaintiff Bradley & Kellogg Butler & Mheelcri
for defendant, r. W. Clarke, A. Reyes =. T. Wash
burne.
Bank Of BrauieJoro vs.. Frank Retd anil Hmy
Smih.--1his was an action of eloctment for certain
premises situated in Brattleboro. The defendant
Smith disclamcd all right to the premises and was
discharged. The defendant Reed wa, proved to he in
possession of the premises at Tie time the suit
brought and claiming title under his father Henry
Reed The plaintiff claimed title to portion Of said
-
of the plaintiff against Henry Reed while he owned
the premises The Court held that the plaintiff levy
was invalid, because that l.. G.. Mead the magistrate
who appointed the appraisers ON the execution was
stakeholder in the Bank Of Bratlcboro at the time of
their appointment and directed verdict for the de-
PENDANT. For plaintiff George Howe Daniel Kellogg;
for defendant Z. Kirkland.
.Di Richardson, apt vs.. Caroline RicLardson It al,
Lry ty IA.
from the probate of the will of Warren Il. Richardon,
and the appcllan: objected to the probate OF the viii
because TIE same was not duly and formally executed
10y the tc,iator and because the viii procured to
be naie 10y tho undue Influence of the execu.or- The
appellants evidence upon the latter point consisted en-
trcly Of the tc.ta,ors declaration. after the will WAS
made, which the Court held hal no tendency legally
to show that the will was procured by undue influence
and directed IL verdict for the appeiccs For appel
hut, Fletcher. Dnycnpor, 4 lla,kiu- Wa,hbum; for
appcllces Stough;on 4 Grant, Rounds.
Gcmge b. Ciprh V. .it,aon b. Cialin.-1h,
was an action Of ciecmcnt brought to secure the
scizn and possession of certain real estate conveyed
to plaintiff by one Fo,tn Church. The defendant
claimed to hold the estate by deed from Deborah
Church and her title to said real estate was acquired
10y virtue Of levy of an execution in her iyor against
fosin Church, made subsequent to the conveyance
to plaintiff Of the estate ia question Ly Fc..n Cimch.
The defendant claimed tia, the conveyance Fo~tm
Church to plaintiff wa. fraudulent and void 81, TO her
by reason of his adequacy Of consideration. The
Court directed verde, tor defendant For plantili.
Soughton & Grant; for defendant, Campbell. u. Kel-
loge, Wa,hhur.
I"rn Il Jamaica vs.. TorHcf TacoAeai, opt-Ihi.
WIS an appeal from order Of removal Of Lucy Hi
a.. 3d.. .