Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1861-07-19

the defendant urged the team upon him,
that he was ignorant ofthe revenue laws,
and put confidence in the statements OF the
defendant, when be said the team was not
liable. The defendant said he only told
the plaintiff that he had been told that
there were no duties, that his team was
all right.
The Court told the jury that if they
found that Jenness bought the horse in
good faith, and supposed that it was not
liable to seizure, then he would be en-
titled to recover; but if he bought it with
the understanding that he was to look
out for the title himself, then the defend
and would be entitled 10 a verdict.
Verdict for defendant, that he recover
his costs.
Sartle, Edwards, RcdGeld, for plaintiff;
Wm. II. Circuit, for defendant.
John Morrill, vs.. the town of Derby
This was an action on an order in favor
of one NJ. NJ. Kelsey on plaintiff, for
500, signed by Avery Ives, John f,
Morrill,, and Chancey Wilson. Theplain-
tiff showed that the signers were then Sc
lectmen of Derby, and that said Kelsey
was the contracto? for building a piece of
road in said Derby, and that this 500,
was to be paid to said Kelsey as portion
Of his consideration for contracting to
build said road, that although said plant
if did not pay over the hundred dollars
to Kelsey he satisfied him, that Kelsey in
good faith expended the money and look
ed for bis pay to the power Of this order
In this order the selectmen agree, if
Morrill, will answer the order, to give him
piece of old road which they contem-
plated giving up as unnecessary after the
construction of the new piece Of road
-, ii. .hma,ob ,la;,fT,s
land
Inc + "'u''"' ','''''eO VIC, -, ~
for two reasons principally; first, because
s"'u o'o'' vas ',s'01 y I.
ii. hooan.o tho old
- - .a,, ,,;.,, nr,,r,ror5s ascertain
r., =, :. =, =, ,5o,5 o,,,lj NOT bo-dis.
-
:,
Inc Court was Of oPI"'o" NAV '''" =. :,
if This money was actually expended by
Kelsey on said road, and the town could
not fulfill their contract to give plaintiff
the old road, there was failure Of con
sideration and the town was liable to re-
fund the money to Morrill-that 1t did
not lie in the mouth OF the defendant TO
] object to the plaintiff claim because
thero might DC " misunderstanding DC
tween Kelsey ana MN ny "ilcn NORTH
did not pay the huhdreu uoli"r' 10 Aei'
Sey, provided on Tue s'renS'" u 'N''
agreement between Morr'i' "uu '''0 u" !"
I Kelsey actually expended tne money
Plaintiff also claimed for bis subscrip.
ton to said road, but was overruled.
Verdict for plaintih-Sl30 damages.
b. II. Steele and II. {. Wilson tol
/ plaintiff Edwards & Stewart and ). b
Colby for defendant.
49,, mon.
0"'i''s IL iiU'' ''' ''',
A'o'' 9 '0' " ''o''',
'"e wagon ~ 0''o i>,D'
iieu OH '"e sa'ii' W. .'' pun ''''''0 ''i'''N
oa'u h'uip'on 'ooN '''o ""o'' w - Wv
Line ih'o Sal'"u"' anu "'"' ~ '''0 w
PENDANTS TO oo"ru' remained '"o'7 U'''
MS board OH amounted 10 "Oou' twenty
I'VE doI'arS, anu 'hen ID" away Opo'
Tue Piaihun nearing 'l'' ue "eN' ~ ''''
defendant "o'e'' where 'i'e ""so" was
'or the PURPOSE o' 8e'''"s ''' o"' ','
tue DEFENDANT c"''neu II ny 'N'"0 oI II"
lhhkeePer iie'' that 'S' ci"'i'eu u na''
properly Ill 'he wagon 10 ''0 "'noon
OF hlmpton board o"i' lie also cIai'le'