Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1861-01-18
Orleans County Court.

defendant damages 10! hauu III tile WclSH
Of butter, sold by the plaintiff TO The
defendant in the Gall of 1858.
The evidence was very yolumnous
and the following is only brief sketcl
of it. The butter in question was deliv
cred by the plaintiffs father to the de
PENDANT at a, S. Ealon's store at Bartor
Landing, where it was weighed. Til,
plaintiff claimed that the defendant, il
weighing the butter affected its weight
by putting his foot upon the scale Ii
was claimed that when he weighed the
tubs and butter he put his foot under the
edge Of the scale il such a manner as tC
make it weigh less than its actual weight
and that when he weighed the tub, be
put bis foot on the top Of the platform Sc
as TO make il weigh more than il ought
This the defendant denied, but admitted
that he had difficulty with the scales, and
did put his foot on them to make them
act, but that he had no intention Of cheat
ing the plaintiff 1t WAS in proof that a
portion of the butter was weighed by
two individuals after Merriam had strap
ped it down, and that it weighed more
than tue mark upon the tubs which Mcr-
Ram had placed there, by about three
pounds. But the defendant swore that
after he had completed the weighing
he poured back the brine hat was in the
butter, which would account for the diff
ference in the weight.
This butter was shipped to Boston by
the defendant and sold, and soon after lie
saw the plaintiff at Lebanon and there,
as he claimed, settled with the plaintiff
and gave him bis note, At the time of
tbs interview at Lebanon, the defendant
was owing the plaintiff the sum Of
$685. on the butter, and ii was in
proof that he gave him his note for 500 .
The defendant claimed that the amount /
over and above the amount due ON the .
butter debt was in settlement Of any
mistake that might have baea made in
the weight of the butter; and 20 swore.
He testified that he had heard that the
plaintiff claimed there was fraud in the
weighing Of the butter, and that when
he gave his note for the butter he inclu-
ded S4,75 for any mistake that might
have been made in the weight of the
butter. This the plaintiff denied, and
said the $4,75 was for expenses. 1t was
in proof that the plaintiff had admitted
to several different Witnesses tina. he had |
settled fog the fraud in weight,
The court charged the jury that, in
order to fnd verdict for the plaintiff, |
they must find, in the first place, that .
the defendant had Intentionally cheated
the plaintiff, and that damage had co'ae .
to the plaintiff in consequence Of the .
cheat also that it had not been settled,
$500. .,....5 -.
If they found either Of these fact. in ia
vor Of the defendant they must re,rrn
verdict IN his c,vor. T,e court also
charged the jury that they might, if they .
fonnd the nIain,;g entitled to receive
and file frand sufficiently aggravated
return verdict far damaoos.
The iurv after being out about thi,tv-
six hours came in disagreed and were
DISCHARGED.
Sartlo and Redo ii for plaintiT. 4.
l. L. Bartlett, and Wa. ". Grout for
defendant
- 30 TI.'' I'' ''','
oudited nv N. ", Ringbam boor;n1
unon tho r4port before H,e conrt ind,.
ment for the plaintiff, ACCORDING to fine
report; exceptions by the defendant
Prentiss for plaintiff; Clild & Benton
for defendant.
JV I1..o,.. 49,, G.. nut,
m action in ,respas, for the recovery nj
the value or quantity Of hay. The
plaintiff claimed to recover on the ground
IL. IL - sci