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

This was an action OF assumpslt, brought
TO service for services rendered by the
plaintiff to the defendant in making a,
settlement between lhe defendant and a
woman who claimed to be enctente by
the defendant, Lord. The defendant
admitted that some service was rendered
by the plaintiff in the matter, but claim
ed that he had paid the plaintiff in full
for the same, and also plead in ohsett a
Judgment against the plaintiff of some
twenty.seven dollars.
The jury returned a verdict OF twenty
nine dollars for the plaintiff.
Geo. Tucker and Il. II. steele for
plaintiff; j. p. Sarle, J. l.. Edwards,
aud +. L. Redfeld for defendant.
AFRO Gray vs.. Phebe and b. w. Case.
This was an action of a.sumpsit for
sorrel mare, which was loaned by the
plaintiff to defendants, and stolen from
their custody.
The defendant, Phcbe, borrowed the
mare fer her own use, but portion OF
the conversation concerning tho loan wa
had in presence of her son, b. w. Case
the other defendant, with whom she
lived; and the plaintiff claimed that by
being present and asserting to the loan
he became a party to it. Said Phebe
borrowed tho mare on Thursday, in the
month Of April, 1861, for the purpose of
carrying some things to the plaintiff
wife, who was sick. The plaintiff was
unwilling to leave the mare as the roads
were bad and he did not wish TO have her
used, but did so at the request OF the de-
PENDANT. and with the understanding that
she would be returned that night. The
defendants claimed that no specific time
being fixed for her return, they were to
return her at their own convenience, and
it was not convenient for them to return
her on Thursday or Friday. The mare
was never returned, but stolen from de-
PENDANTS possession Friday night.
The defendants lived but about a mile
from the plaintiff, yet they gave no notice
of the loss till between eight and nine o.
clock next morning. The plaintiff at
once instituted dilligent search for the
mare, but the defendant, b. W. Case, re-
fused TO aid him for fear he would be-
come liable. The plaintiff expended some
money and considerable time, hut found
no trace of her.
Tho Court charged the jury that if the
mare was left by the plaintiff for defend
ants to do him (plaintif) service, and
for bis (plaintG's) benefit, then it would
not be a loan. That the defendants would
be bound to use only such care and pru-
denca in keeping the mare as farmers
usually exercise under like circumstances
That if the loan was only for enc day, and
the defendant kept it beyond that time,
they are liable. That in order to render
b. w. Case liable, jointly with Phebe, he
must have said or done something by
which the jury should find that lie as
scented to the contract and became party
TO it.
The jury returned verdict for plain
tiff VS.. Phebe Case Of S52,49 damage
and costs, but released tho other defend
ant, b. w. Case.
A.. & L. Bartlett, for plaintiff; T. p
Redfeld, Edwards & Stewart, for de
PENDANTS.
Horatio Nye VS.. Henry c. Merriam
The plaintiff in this action claimed tina
tho defendant had cheated him in TIL
weight of some butter, which he sol,
him in the fall of 1858, and which plain
tif''s father delivered to the deieudan
at Barton Landing. The alleged chea
consisted in the defendants putting HI
foo, uader the edge Of the scale when h
weighed n tub of butter, and upon the FOL
Of the scale when be weighed the tub
To this point plaintiff brought two wit
nesses. The defendant said lie ha
trouble with the scales that they did no
act readily and that he put his foot on then
for the purpose OF making them act bu
with no intention of cheating the plaintiff
There were also three or four other ind
viduals present who saw nothing wron
in the weight of the butter. The vii
nesscs who claimed to have seen tn
cheat, sid they weighed over two or tire
tubs after the defendant had complete
the weighing, and that they weighed tw
or tire pounds more than they wer
marked This the defendant; accounted
for by saying that he poured back tn,
brine into the tubs after he had completed
the weighing. The defendant took th,
butter bad Of plaintiff, as above stated, t.
Boston with large quantity purchased
O other custsmers in the county but be
fore going did not pay the plaintiff for hi
butter, for the reason that the plaintiff
(afhar daal;,nI rooesv;,cv Tho ,,,orax- a