Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1862-03-20
VOL. xxx.
SUPREME COURT.

although some unavoidable delay has taken place, we
doubt not many Of our readers will agree with us that
this delay is more than compensated 10y their value
-ED. PHGSiX.l
ELpRIpoE G. MASON, EXECUTOR, VS.. JOSEPH MASON,
APPELLANT.
This is an appeal from the decree OF the Pro-
bate Court allowing the viii of Anthony Ma
son. The case came before this Court by ex-
ceptions to the decisions Of the County Court
denying the defendants motion for new trial.
Ii appeared that one one of the Jurors was
cousin of the wife OF one of the heirs at law,
interested to defeat the Will--that this fact first
came to the knowledge Of the defendant and
his counsel just leforo the Jury came in with
their verdict establishing the Will tit also ap-
peared by the testimony of the Juror that he
never once thought during the trial of the fact
of his wiles relationship to the heir, and that
the verdict was against the interest of that heir.
The case was argued before the Supreme
Court year ago and continued for judgmen.
till this term. The Judgment Of the County
Court refusing Il new trial was affirmed, but no
opinion was delivered and therefore the portic-
ular gri unds of the decision are not known
VIM. II. Follett, c. X. Field, II. j.. Stoughton,
for plaintiffs A. Keyes, ]. d. Bradley, y.
Stoddard, for defendants.
GEORGE b. CHURCH, VS.. ALANsoN O. cHAriN.
This case was argued February Term, 1861,
and continued to this term for judgment. The
case was Eiectment-both parties claimed under
Fortin Church, the plaintiff by deed from For
tin, and the defendant under a levy of execution
issued on judgment of Deborah Church vs.
said Fortin obtained subsequent to the deed to
plaintiff. The question was whether the deed
to plaintiff was to be considered voluntary
conveyance, and so void as to creditors. The
consideration of the deed was an undertaking
by the plaintiff to support Fostin through life,
to pay out certain sums Of money to several of
his relatives and to pay certain of his debts,
not including however that to Deborah, which
Fortin always insisted was not justly due to her.
At the time of the deed Fortin also conveyed
to the plaintiff by bill of sale all his personal
property, excepting certain notes which he re-
tained for his own disposal.
The County Court held that the notes so re-
tanned by Fortn were too inconsiderable part
of his property to furnish sufficient fund to pay
his debts, and so prevent the deed from being
imperative against creditors, and directed a
verdict for the defendant. The judgment of
the County Court was atfrmed.-H L. Slough
ton. for plaintiff; A. S. Campbell, for defendant.
WILMINGTON VS.. SOMERSET, APPELLANT
Appeal from an order of removal of a pau
per from Wilmington 10 Somerset. BY an act
of the Legislature which took effect January
1859, part of Somerset was annexed to VIII
mington. The pouper had been supported by
Somerset for several years previous and up tc
the time of the annexation; her home was or
the annexed Territory at the time she became
chargeable At the time the annexation took
effect she was living in Wardsboro with mar
hired by Somerset to take care of her.
Held that the pauper was "absent" at the tint
of the annexation. within the meaning of thu
statute, and as her "home" fell upon the terri
- tory annexed to Wilmington, that town wa
chargeoble with her support. Order of re
moval quashed.-C. n. Davenport, S. p. F!agg
II for plaintiff; c. X. Field, d. Kellogg, for de
fendant.
wARDsBoRo VS.. sTRATToN, APPELLANT.
This was pauper case growing out of tn
= annexation Of part of Somerset to Stratton.
The facts in this case were similar and tn
), decision the same as in Wilmington vs.. Somer
to set.-C. n. Davenport. A. Stoddard, for plain
n...1. O.. e.. 4
of fendant.
ABIAL RICHARDSON APPELLANT, VS.. CAROLINE RIcI
AKDsoN, 1T Al, ENECUToRs.
d Appeal from the decree Of the Probate Coul
allowing the Will Of Warren b. Richardson
in The objections to the Probate were list, Tha
=" one of the three subscribing witnesses wa
r. named as Executor, and so it was not execute
in the presence of three credible witnesses. %
That the making Of the VIII was procured b
the undue influence Of the principal Legatee
\, Held, that an Executor taking no interest VI
der a viii is credible atlesting witness III
ID der the statute.
St I'd, That the declarations of testator NJ
re made at the time of the execution of the Wi
are not admissible to prove undue influence
Judgment allowing the VIII aifrmed.-P.
9 Washburn, C. n Davenport for plaintiff; WI
or, Rounds, ii. l.. Stougton, for defendants.
OK
Il. II. FARRAR AND WIFE VS.. o. s. HOWARD.
we This was bill brought to remove a trust
IT. appointed for Mrs. Farar by her fathers Wi
= Since :he case came into this Court the hu
H. H. band died, that the trust expired by its ov
limitation, and it was agreed by the couns
or that the bill should be dismissed, but questi,
eN of costs was raised before the Court, who loo
rO ell into the papers so far as necessary to dete
md mine that matter, and the result was the
lowing of costs to the dcfendon.--J. Rober
lie, d. Kellogg, for plaintiffs A. Keyes, p.
y Washburn, for defendant
ler HIRAM woOLEY VS.. JOHN EDISON, ET AL.
,,,s 0Is Wooley bought pair of oxen, on term
credit, and with condition that they rent
the vendors property till paid for-afterwaI
the the vendor sold his interest to a third par
eat who duly notified Wooley of his purchase, a
,uol that payment must be made to him, to viii
Wooley assented. Subsequently and bef'
ox the expiration of the time of credit a credit
of the original vendor attached the oxen as
~ ,,ronnrtv and took them from Woolpy's moss