Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1865-07-14
Orleans County Court.

issue. The defendant claimed that tb
plaintiff, who is the father Of the defen
dant, abandoned his wife and went int
Canada, leaving her without any supper
and that the wife sold the furniture i
question, 10 the defendant, which was {
be applied towards her support, and CAV
him bill of sale of the property. TIL
plaintiff claimed that be wanted his wifi
TO leave the house of :he defendant ant
live with him, but she would not, because
as he claimed, bis children persuaded be-
not to 90. The defendant claimed it wa
because the plaintiff was living with 8
family of bad reputation. There was M
evidence directly that the plaintiff wa:
living with a man of bad character, al
though it was strongly intimated thai
such was the case. 1t was one of those
family cases which parades to the gaze
of an eager and curious community
many family secrets which should al
ways have been locked up in the memo
ries of the relatives. The Court charged
that the wife's outset became the property
of the husband on marriage, but if he
abandons his wife, leaving her without
any means of support, she can sell his
household furniture or any of his property
to obtain such support. He also charged
that the husband has the right to say
where the home shall be, and if the hus-
band wished to change his place of abode,
the wife must 60 with him, unless he is
utterly unable to support her and fur.
nish her home.
Verdict for plaintiff for $4,000 and
costs. j. T. Allen and B. Fl. Steele for
plaintiff; Crane 81 Bisbee and w. W.
Grout for defendant.
The Grand Jury found bill of indict-
ment against Joseph Leazer, for stealing
a wallet containing some money. He was
arraigned, plead guilty, and was sentenced
to two years Imprisonment at hard labor.
St. Lawrence University VS.. VIM.
Merriam. of assumpsit for a
subscription of stock for the purpose OF
founding the St. Lawrence University at
Canton, St. Lawrence County, N. Y
The defence was that o Jonathan
Douglass, an agent of the University, in
order to induce the defendant to subscribe,
represented that Mr.. Hardy, Lyndol
French, and Mr. Clark had subscribed,
or were about to subscribe certain sums,
which was false, and that therefore the
defendants subscription was procured by
fraud. The plaintiff denied that any
such representations were made. This
case came back from Supreme Court
where it was carried on the question of
law, whether ifsuch representations were
made as the plaintiff claimed, it would
constitute any defense to the action. The
Supreme Court decided that it would
constitute a good defense-and the case
was tried at this time to determine if such
representations were made.
Verdict for the plaintiff for $34,75.-I
w. w. Grout and L. II. Bsbee r
plaintiff; B. II. Steele and Geo. N. Dale
for defendant
j. L. Nichols VS.. j. Martin.--This was
IN action of trover for some potatoes
Plea the general issue, in which the de-
PENDANT offered evidence that the land on
which the potatoes were raised, belonged
to another person, who claimed the pota-
toes as his property. This the plaintiff
denied. Verdict for plaintiff for 1855.
John Young and B. II. Steele for the
plaintiff; W. d. Wilson, Crane & Bis
bee for defendant.
The following cases we're tried by the
Court -
Ira Camp VS.. A. w. Putnam.-This
was an action of trespsss on the freehold
for taking cellar wall in Newport
The defendant had confessed Judgment
and the question was the amount of dam
age. 1t appeared from the evidence Of
the defendant that he bought the cellar
wall Of one Edward Mooney, who built
the wall, and that previous to drawing it
away one Mr.. Barnes had drawn off a
portion of the wall. There was consd-
cradle conflicting testimony in regard to
the value of the wall. The court deci-
ded that the plaintiff should have $50
damages.
Edwards & Dickerman for plaintiff
Charles Robinson, j. T. Allen, Crane &c
Bisbee for defendant.
Patrick Dougherty VS.. A. ]. Dodge
Trespass on the freehold for taking one {
Fairbanks Hay Scales. Plea the gen. {
eral issue, and special plea tina. they !,
were taken by the defendant as a con /,