Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1861-07-05
Orleans County Court,

Hiram Cass VS.. Timothy Dudley
This was an action in ejectment brought
by the plaintiff to recover the possession
of a strip Of land upon which he claimed
that the defendant had established himself
in possession. This strip of land was
seventeen rods wide, and to all but four
rods adjoining the defendants farm he,
the defendant, entered disclaimer, that
is, denied ever having claimed the pos
session or of having exercised acts Of ow-
nership over it. The strip four rods
vide above mentioned he claimed as be-
longing TO his farm, and upon these issues
the parties went to trial, The plaintiff
claimed and introduced evidence tending
TO establish the fact that the defendant had
hitherto claimed the whole Of the seven
teen rod strip and at different times had
cut timber upon the same. Plaintiff also
introduced us evidence different surveys
of the line between himself and the de-
PENDANT, showing that the four rod strip
belonged to his farm. The defendant on
the other hand testified himself and called
other witnesses to the fact that he had
never claimed any Of the seventeen rod
strip but the four rods next his farm, and
also introduced the testimony of different
surveyors who Lad run the line between
his farm and the plaintiff, and who found
the line to include in his, the defendants,
farm, the four rod strip.
The court charged the jury that in or
der to maintain the action of ejectment
the plaintiff must establish two things,
first that he owned the land which he had
sued for and also that the defendant was
keeping him out OF the possession of it,
and if the jury were satisfied that the
four rod strip belonged to the defendant,
they would then have to find that the de-
PENDANT was in the possession OF the bal
anco of the seventeen rod strip, and keep
ing the defendant out, and upon this point
they were to consider the testimony and
say what from the whole was established
as the truth.
The jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff, that he recover Of the defend
ant the sum of $2,62 damages and bis
costs.
Ssrtle and Redfeld for the plaintiff
A. & l.. Bartlett, Colby and Grout for
the defendant.
VIM. w. Grout vs. Hiram Hill and
Jerry Drew,--This was an action bro't
by plaintiff against the defendants for an
assault committed upon him in the high
way in Barton in the Fall of 1853. The
facts in the case were briefly these: The
plaintiff was employed by the authorities
Of the town Of Barton TO conduct, as coun
sci, a prosecution against The defendant
Hill, for selling liquor. The defendant
Drew, was the only man who did actua
violence 20 the plaintiff But the plain
tiff claimed that the defendant, Hill, pro,
cured Drew to commit the assault, art
not only this, but that he actually toob
part in it by putting Drew up to it after
Drew had commenced the assault. The
plaintiff called three witnesses, who swort
that they heard Hill tell Drew to give The
plaintiff licking, aud he would bear hin
out in it and those same witnesses swort
that Drew attacked the plaintiff so soon
as he could get to- him; and that i'm
mediately after the defendant, Drew, had
assailed the plaintiff, Hill came up behind
Drew and nudged him with Lis knee
and punched MIN with his thumb, and
that when he did this, Drew continued
the assault with additional fury. 1t wa,
in proof that the plaintiff made no resist
ance, but told the defendant to take wha
course he choose and be satisfied. 1t wa.
also in proof that the defendant shook anC
kicked the plaintiff, and to some extent
tore his clothes. The defendant, Drew
by his counsel, admitted his liability, said
he was sorry for it, but his manner upon
the stand showed but very little sorrow.
Hill denied having had anything to do
by way Of procuring or encouraging the
assault.
The Court charged the jury that in
this class of action they were not confined
to the actual damage, but when the aci
was wanton and malicious, they were en-,
titled TO give what is called exemplary
damages or smart money.
The jury, after being out about Ii
hours, returned not agreed. The ques
ton on which they disagreed was as tC
whether the defendant, Hill, should b,
held or not.