Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1864-07-08
H H R WI s.
Orleans County Court.

This was an action on a note. The de-
PENDANT claimed that the note was found
ed in usury. The plaintiff claimed that
as the note was executed in Canada, the
Canadian law should govern, and that by
that law the note contained no element OF
usury. The plaintiff produced a Cana
dian attorney who gave evidence tending
to prove the plaintiffs claim. The plain
tiff denied that such was the law Of Can
ada. The jury disagreed.
B. Fl. Steele and L. II. Bisbee fol
plaintiff; Edwards & Dickerman for de-
PENDENT.
Samuel N. Gragg V. James II. Hull
This was an action of trover for large
quantity of tools and machinery. Plea
the general issue. The plaintiff founded
his claim on a receipt, which be claimed
was executed and delivered to him by
the defendent. The defendent claimed
that he never executed such receipt,
but had signed his name in blank to a
paper, and that the plaintiffs attorney
had filed up the paper with the tools and
machinery without his knowledge or cons
sent, excepting a small portion of which
he did consent TO have inserted in the re-
ceipt. The case was continued for fur
Their evidence.
Charles Robinson and Geo. N. Dale
for plaintiff; G. /. Vail and J. H. Prem
tiss for defendent.
James Wilson v. Isaac Seavey.-This
was an action of trespass for taking of
certain cattle. Plea the general issue,
and notice that the defendent took the
property as collector Of taxes in the
town of Bloomington. The plaintiff
claimed that the taking of the cattle was
illegal, as there was no warrant attached |
to the tax bill for the collection of the
state school tax. The court sustained
this claim of the plaintiff and directed the
jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff.
The defendent took exception to this de-
cision of the court, and the case will be
carried to the supreme court.
Steele and Robinson for plaintiff Ed
wards and Dickerman and I. P. Red
field for defendent.
Charles Kilburn V. John A. Prouty.--
This was an action Of assumpsit for a
quantity of hay. Plea general issue
The plaintiff claimed that the defendent
promised him, if he would give posses
sion of defendants farm in Newport,
which the plaintiff was renting, he would |
give him one and one half tons of hay. |
This the defendent denied, and claimed
that be made no such contract. Verdict
for the plaintiff for $1l,09 damages and
costs.
J. T, Allen and Geo. N. Dale for
plaintiff; A. D. Bates and b. II. Steele
for defenden'.
Samuel w. Cobb v. j. Buswell.--This
was an action of trespass for taking two
horses, enc wagon and one harness
Plea general issue and notice that the
defendent took the property as deputy
sheriff on writ Of attachment in favor
of Thos. o. May, and against one Wor-
cester in whose hands the property then
was. He claimed the property by vir-
tue of chattel mortgage executed and
delivered in the state of New Hamp-
shire. The defendent offered consdera-
BILE evidence that Worcester claimed to
own the property, and held himself out
to the community as the owner. Verdict
for plaintiff for $40.
Charles Robinson for plaintiff; j. T.
Allen and j. p. Sartle for defendent.
VIM. II. Rand y. Joseph Wheelock.--
This was an action of assumpsit on the
warrant of steam engine, which the
plaintiff purchased OF the defendent.--
Plea the general issue. The plaintiff
alleged that the defendent warranted the
engine to be sound and perfect; that the
engine was uusound and imperfect at the
time Of the purchase, and that he had
been compelled to expend large sum of
money to repair the engine. The de-
PENDENT denied that he warranted the en-
CINE and also claimed that il was sound
and perfect excepting a slight breakage,
when be sold il to the plaintiff. The ev-
idence was very contradictory in regard
to the warranty. The court charged the
jury that if they found the fact that the
defendent did warrant the engine in the
sale to the plaintiff, then they should rem.
der verdict for the plaintiff for the diff
ference between what The engine was in
fact worth, and what It would have been
worth if it was as represented by defen-
dent; also for what sum the plaintiff had
expended in making the machine as rep
resented. Verdict for plaintiff for $40
and oosfe