Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1865-02-09

disallowance of certain claims against
the estate of the defendant. The claim
was founded upon the furnishing neces-
'sary articles for the support of the in
testatc, size being poor and relying in
part upon said support Among the
charges the auditor allowed /" the eX-
penses incurred by the town in obtain
ing pension " for the intestate Judg-
ment was rendered pro torma upon the
report of the auditor for $342.31. Ex-
captions by the defendant Nicholson
& Ormsbee for the plaintiff; Fl. G.
Wood, Prout & Dunton for the de-
PENDANT.
John'L. Marsh ct al V. Moses Hay
ward. Action of account as Bailiff and
Receiver, in which the defendant is re-
quired to render an account of the time
In which the defendant was CO. partner
with the plaintiff, in selling goods &c,
under the Protective Union. To this
the defendant demurred and on the hear
ing Of demurrer, the court decided that
the declaration was insufficient. The
plaintiff excepted. Thrall fer the plain
tiff; Smith for the defendant.
W. H. Smith v. Joseph Dougherty.
Action of book account. Exceptions
were taken to the report and decision
OF the auditor, allowing certain items,
and disallowing certain others, in an
attorneys account. Judgment was
rendered on the report for the plaintiff
for the whole account, except one item,
which was waived Exceptions by the
defendant. W. H. Smith, per Sc G. K.
Williams for the defendant.
Selah II. Langdon V. Reuben r.
Thrall. This was petition on the part
of the defendant, setting forth that in
the assessment Of damages heretofore
recovered in the above cause, an error
had occurred, whereby a larger sum
was inserted in the record than what
was due. from a proper computation
afterwards ma ,a", On q shown" Of the
facts the court ordered, that the record
be corrected by inserting the true sum
thus found to be actually due. Excep-
lions were taken by the defendant to
the manner of computing interest,
which the court decided to be correct.
=. Edgerton for the plaintiff; r. R.
Thrall for the defendant.
The following case was heard on Sat
urday, Feb. 4th, in addition to those be-
fore reported
Henry +. Lothrop, Administrator, ap-
pellant, v. Carlos A. Hitchcock ct. al
Originally petition to the Probate
Court, praying said court to revoke an
order referring a certain claim between
the parties. The petition was dismissed
by the Probate Court, and it came to
the County Court on appeal by plaintiff,
by which Court 1t was also dismissed.
for the reason that the Probate Court
had. no Jurisdiction. Exceptions by
plaintiff. e. J. Phelps, Edgerton g.
Paul for plaintiff; W. Fl. Smith, Prout
& Dunton for defendant.
Divorces were granted by the Court
in favor Of the following petitioners:
Lewis l.. whitlock of Brandon.
Robert T. Williams Of Fairhaven
Noel Allen of Wallingford.
Eugene A. Cooley of Pittsford.
james N. Reed of Rutland,
Chauncey w. Brown of Poultney.
Julia A. Sanborne of Mendon.
Lucinda M. Gary OF Rutland.
Anthony Pelky Of Rutland.
Ann Arnold of Clarendon.
Asa z. Fuller OF Rutland.
The Court on Monday, the 9th instQ
announced decisions as follows:
Whitcomb v. Cook. Judgment of
County Court reversed and case remand
ed for new trial.
Whitlock v. Executors of whitlock,
Judgment affirmed. Certified to Pro-
bate Court