The Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1837-1867, 1863-04-03

| ~'AAS O todu IN lne toWn OF lhetf0rQ. In
'nis case the commissioners came out and
iaio out the road AMI assessed the land dam
ages without giving the town of Thetford
al! notiee SO that they might appear and
nave voice In matter that they were i'm
mediately interested in. And the decision
OF the County Courtlthat the town was lis
ble to pay the damages assessed against
them without notice was reversed and the
commissioners fare to assess the damages
over again on notice to the parties. Judg-
ment for deft reversed.
No. l4-Wm. Wills VS.. Sanford Bannister.
This is rep.evin suit for heifer. The deft
claimed lien upon her for her keeping, but
the court decided that be had no lien upon
the facts reported by the referee. Judgment
OF County Court for plf affirmed.
No. l6-Asa Low vs. VIM. Peters. This
was an action upon note to which defence
of bankruptcy and statute of limitations was
made in County Court, but Judgment was
rendered for tie plf, and the case went up
to the Supreme Court on question relative
to the admission of NaphtaE Shaw's deposit
tion,vhois deceased, or the admission OF COPY
of his deposition the original being lost.
Court decided that as the witness was dead,
it entitled the party claiming his testimony
to introduce secondary evidence, and that
the copy was admissible. Judgment of Coun-
tyCourt for plf affirmed.
No. a0-Zaccheus Flint VS.. Henry Stedman.
Action of covenant. Judgment of County
Court for plf affirmed.
No. 2I-Alfred Ladd, apt VS.. ID. G. Lord,
ct ais. This is an action for fraud in the sale
of pair of oxen. A question was made
whether both defts were liable and whether
they stood In the relation of partners TO each
other or as principal and ageLt. The court
decided that II made no difference as regards
their liability. If they were partners and
one sold the oxen and used deceit or made
false representations and the other did not
know it at the time, If the other received
the benefit of thetraud and affirmed the trade
after it came TO his knowledge; and if pr.n-
cipal and agent, and the agent sold the cattle
by the use of fraud, and the principal receiv-
ed the benefit of if, he is held as ratifying
the trade and that makes both liable. So
whether joint owners or principal and agent,
both detts are liable. Thsre was a question
made in this case also in regard 10 the open
Ing and filing dispositions, and the court held
that dispositions to be used before auditors
and referees need not be first fled with
County Clerk and opened by him, but may
be opened and fled by the audito or or referee
before whom they are TO be used. Judgment
of County Court for plf affirmed.
No. 26-Wm Wheatly VS.. Charles Waldo,
apt. This is an action of assumpsit to re-
cover back money paid as usury. Plf recOv-
cred what money he had paid as usurY.-
There was question arose In regard to vol
untary payments of money anl il was held
that they could not be recovered back; hut
money paid Under protest on execution or
collectors warrant or mesne process against
body made use of as an instrument of op-
preston and wrong, can be recovered back
being held not 10 be voluntary payments.
But money paid on the commencement of a
suit before judgmen and settlement of the
suit is held 10 be voluntary payment the
same as though no suit at all had been COM
meneed. Judgment COR plf in County Court
affirmed
No. S-Asa Low vs.. B. B. Muzzey's es-
tate. Assumpsit for money paid as usury.
In these casts the form Of the transaction is
not 20 Le regarded but the substance is 10
govern. In this case there was Sl5 90 held
to been havepaid as usury and 81 20 were
paid by Lows assignees with his consent 10
Muzzey by the false representations of Muz-
zey's estate II was held that the money
could not have been recovered back now by
Lows assignees or his creditors on account
of lapse of time if ever they could. Judg-
ment of County Court for lfis affirmed and
result to be reported to Probat Court
No. 30-Jerusha s. Tracy VS.. Sally Hutch
ins. Lies with court
Ne. a7-Siate vs. George Sleeper. Lies
with count.
No. 2s-Staie vs.. Muses. ii. MagoOn. Lies
with court.
No. 3l-Hor4ee Strickland, ct ais, vs..
George ". Priehard, ct ais. Lies with
court.
No. 2l-George A. Morey VS.. Ira Whitch-
er admr, ct ais. Judgment of chancellor in
favor of drtts. is affirmed and case remanaed
to co1rt of chancery to be perfected.
DIVORCES GRANTED.
Samuel McNIasterJr VS.. Caroline McMaster.
R;,l GRANTED Cause, wilful deseriion.
Eliza f. Wimot VS.. Ira S. Wilmot. Bill
GRANTED. Cause, intol.rable severity.
R;char \, Brown V. Mary A. B0own. Bill
granted. Cause, adultery
Harriet Johnson vs. Thomas Johnson
Stands open. Cause, intolerable severity.
Notion for alimony. Mother has custody of
child a present
Ellen II. Hood VS.. Nm. F. Hood. Cause,
uilsul desertion. Custody of child given 10
mother.
Elizabeth O'Conner vs.. Michael OConner.
Cause, intolerabe severity
Eivira 7. Thompson vs. ALVIN Thompson.
Cause, wilful desertinn.
Nebi,aole Ste5bins VS.. Milo ]. Stebbins
Cause- in,olerable severity. $40 90 alimony
grated 10 iibellant- o
Sophia L. Clough VS.. Caleb ClOugh. Con-
-,,ral