Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1861-01-04
Orleans County Court.

Orleans County Court.
In the case Of Al6ee rs. ParRH et. a., report |
ed last week, the jury returned verdict for the
plaintiff to recover of the defendant the peaeea-
bic possession of the premises, and also recover
Sl57 damages and his costs.
Benz. II. Steele and Geo. Tucker rplaintfi
N. t. Sheafe, J. l.. Edwards and s. d. Colby
for defendant.
H. D. Garfield rs. B. H. Hlooster-This was
an action for an assault committed by the de-
PENDANT npon the person Of the plaintiff. twas
proved that in March, 1859, the plaintiff leased
of one ozro Morrill, house and barn situated
IN Derby Line village. It also appeared that at
the time of the execution Of this lease, which
was IN writing the defendant was in possession
of the premises and had been for over two
years under parole lease from this same Ozro
Morrill,. It also furtherappearcd that the plain
tiff had gone into possession Of portion OF
these premises by leave Of the defendant pre-
vious to his receiving his written lease from
morrill,.
The proof was clear that an assault and bat
terry had been committed by the defendant upon
lnt pldiullil. lllt AtltlAAatAA , tMlA pun aAeN
ed this, but he claimed that It was done in de-
Tense of his possession Of this lease mentioned
above. The facts upon this point were these
The plaintiff under his written lease claimed the
possession Of the premises in question, and in
the absence of the defendant who stl claimed
the possession, removed from the barn the de-
PENDANTS COW, and other property, and put his
oNn therein When the defendant returned he
removed the plaintiffs horse and COW from the
barn, and while doing this the plaintiff himself
came up towards the barn, whereupon the de-
fcndant standing in the barn door warned him
not to enter, and about the same time dealt him
blow with the pitchfork which broke his col
lar bone
The defendants counsel claimed that the legal
possession of the promises was in the defendant,
that he having held possession Of the premises
more than two years, and the landlord having
received rents he became a tenant from year 70
year, and as such would be entitled to hold to
the end of the third year; and being in the pos
session Of the premises would have right to
use the necessary force 10 keep the plaintiff
from the barn.
The court told the jury that this was substan-
TALLY the right of the defendant, he having the
legal possession Of the premises, but that in do
ing this he must use no more force than was ne
cessary to accomplish this object, and that if the
jury thought the force used by the defendant
was excessive, the plaintiff would be entitled to
recover; the court charged them however, that
the defendant must act like reasonable
man, and use gentle means first if there was
any probability that they would prevail that
he must use only such force as was necessary
20 keep the plaintiff out the barn. The court
further instructed the jury that the question of
damages was wholly with them, and upon this
branch of the ease they were allowed TO conf
pensate for the injured feelings of the plaintiff, |
for the pain that he suffered from the blow, for
the actual pecuniary damage, and if they found |
that the act was wanton aud malicious on the
part Of the defendant they would be entitled to
return exemplary damages, in other words make |
an example Of him.
The jury returned verdict for the plaintiff
for Sl56 and costs.
Benz. II. Steele and Amasa Bartlett for the
plaintiff; n. T. sheafc J. L. Edwards and s. |
b. Colby for the defendant.
J. and J. Dyeie Us. +. s. Fyeach.-The facts
IN this case were as follows The defendant
was the administrator upon the estate of John
II. Kimball, late of Barton, and as such sold at
auction by leave Of the probate court the farm
belonging 10 this estate situated on Barton river
The plaintiffs were present and bid off the farm
and afterwards paid over one hundred dollars
towards it. The proof was that the anctioncerl
at the time Of the sale told the bidders that a
good title would be given. After the sale was
closed and the hundred dollars paid over, the |
plaintiffs heard reports prejudclal to the title
and wanted warranty deed. The administra-
tor on the occasion Of the sale told the bidders
that he would give only an administrators deed,
but testified that they said they would give a
good title. The plaintiffs claimed that the title
was not good, and would take only warranty
decd, and as the administrator would not give
tl.is, nor refund the hundred dollars the plain
tiis brought suit to recover this sum-
On the trial the defendant gave in evidence in
support Of the title two deeds from the heirs of
James Leach, who formerly owned this farm,
and signed before they were Of age: the other
purported to be signed by these heirs after they
were of age. The defendant claimed title in
the estate Of John II. Kimball by this deed In
addition to this they showed the occupation to
have been in the estate for about eighteen years.
In the last deed from the heirs Of James Leach,
one Of the heirs was set up rs being the wife of
Lyman r. Potter, and the deed did not show
that the acknowledgment was taken in tho form,
which the law prescribcs in else of a married
woman, in consequence of which the convey
ance was void, and as the statute of limitations
does not run against the rights Of a married vo-
man, the court charged the jury that at the time
of the auction sale above alluded to the estate
of John II. Kmball did not have good title.
and that the administrators deed would not
convey good title.
The jury returned o verdict for the plaintiffs
10 recover Sl06 and costs.
Thomas Bartlett and BENZ, II. Steele f)rplain-
tifTs; s. B. Colby and T. P Redfeld for defend
ants.