Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1862-04-17
LOCAL INTEbLIGENCE.

WINDHAM County CoURT-The record o.
the April Term of the Windham County Court
is, thanks TO absence Of all travelling. brie
without precedent. The term commenced
Tuesday jury trials commenced Wednesday
Thursday was Fast Day the jury trials were
concluded and the juries dismissed Friday; and
the Court business was done up and the Cour,
adjourned Saturday. There was general dis.
position to let the cases slide by, as it was al
most an impossibilty to secure the attendance
of witnesses. Only four cases were given to
the jury, as follows
s. W. Waite VS.. Windham Couify Njnipo
Company This was an action of general as
sumpsit. The plaintiff was Clerk and Treasurer
OF the company and as such claimed specific
salary under contract claimed to have been
made with the Directors of the Company. The
defendant claimed that the bylaws of the cor
poration not making provisions fsf such sala-
ries the Directors could not bind the stock.
holders by such contract if any was made the
plaintiff was entitled to recover for services
actually rendered. and that these were of much
less value than the amount claimed. The Court
held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover
his full salary under the cont act, to which the
defendants excepted. Accordingly verdict
was ordered by the Court for the plaintiff for
the amount claimed-Sl5S5,32.
j. d. Bradley, L. Kirkland for the plaintiff
Daniel Kellogg p. T. Washburn for defendant.
Rosetta Miles VS.. School District No. ~ in
LondoadoN appellant. The plaintiff in this
case contracted with the Prudential Committee
of the District to teach the school fourteen
weeks at $500 per week, exclusive of board
and washing. At the end of three weeks the
Committee discharged her from service. The
plaintiff brought this action to recover wages
for the time she taught the school aud for dam
ages in not being permitted 10 fulfil her con-
tract.
The District relied upon the authority given
by statute to the Prudential Committee ITO re-
move teachers when necessary :" and as the
only reason given for removal was general dis
sa isfaction, the Court decided that the contract
between the teacher and the district was like
other contracts of hiring, and could not be an
nulled by either party On the ground merely of
general dissatisfaction !" and that the Com
mittee could not dismiss the teacher without q
good and sufficient cause, which cause must be
shown on the trial. The defendants then con-
tended that they had settled with and paid the
plaintiff at the time she was discharged, and
relied on that as "accord and satisfaction :" but
the jury failed 10 find this fact, and returned a
verdict for the plaintiff for $1,000, and costs.
T.. E. Kellogg, a. Stoddard for the plaintiff
d. Arnold, Butler & Wheeler, Ii. +. Stoughton
for the defendants.
Joseph B. Ware VS.. O,mdndo S. Houard-
Action Of tresspass, the value of a steer being
the subject matter in controversy. Verdict for
the defendant
J. d. Bradley for plaintiff; A. Stoddard for
defendant.
Jonathan liellendy VS.. b. l.. r. Union, Dir.
l72. Action on a promssory note. Verdict
for plaintiff to recover SlO7,60. A. Stoddard
for plaintiffs Butler e. Wheeler, d. Arnold, IL
f. Stoughton, for defendants.