Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1865-02-09
supreme Court -Rsuand County.
lANuARY TERN, 1865.

IICSOhks lAVhs LbhS 4 NA0AN1 NAANA
Justice, and
Hon, Asa o. Adds,
Hon. John Pierpeint,
Hon. Asahel Peck,
The following cases Were argued on
Wednesday, Feb, lSt. Q
John II. Bowman V. Ferrand Parker,
Action on the Gaze for certain alleged
fraudulent Misrepresentation in regard
to certain stock OF the Vermont Marble
Co, sold by the defendant to the plain
tiff.
In the court below the jury were
charged
lst,-That they must be satisfied that
the representations made by the defend
ant were false statement of present
material facts, as distinguished from
opinions,
2d-That the defendant himself did
not believe in the truth of such repre-
sensations, or that he believed them to
! be false.
3d-That it was an essential condi-
ton, to the plaintiff right to recover,
that he in fact believed, that such repre-
| se1tations-being false-were true.
4th-That the plaintiff to recover,
must have exercised ordinary diligence
in informing himself as to the property
he was purchasing.
The case came up on exceptions bv
the defendant to the above charges
Prout & Phelps for plaintiff; Edgerton
& Roberts for defendant
o. & A. Whitlock, Apis, V. EXecu-
tor of Zalmon Whitlock. This was an
appeal from a decree Of the Probate
Court, approving a certain instrument
to be the last will and testament Of Zal-
mon Whitlock, late of Hubbardton, de
ceased. Exceptions were taken to the
decision Of the court below excluding
certain testimony, going to shew undue
influence eXerted upon the mind Of the
testatOr, and not 10 his incapaCity. The
decree of the Probate was affirmed be-
low, and upon submission of the papers,
without argument, it was also affirmed
in this court. Certificate was ordered
to issue to Probate Court. Dewey &
Joyce for plaintiffs; Briggs 4 Nicholson
for defendant.
Administrator of Silas P. Hulett, V.
Nehemiah Hulett. This was an action
of maebItatuS assumpsit. The question
in this case depended upon the fact of
the domicil or residence of the plaintiff 5
intestate and the defendant: claiming
that they resided in Hampton, in the
State Of New York Exceptions were
taken by the plaintiff to the exclusion of
certain testimony of the plaintiff as to
residence and to the admission of testi-
mOny of the defendant to the same point.
A general verdict was given, by the jury
below, for the defendant Dewey &
Joyce, for plaintiff; EdgertOn & Paul
for defendant.
The following cases were heard in the
Supreme Court on Thursday, Fehru-
airy I'd.
Amasa Briggs q. John H. Boyd, This
was an action of assumpsit for money
had and received &c, brought by the
| plaintiH to recover a contribution, fOr
signing as co-surety with the defendant
for one Ressigue. 1t would require
more room than can be here given to
detail the facts of the case.
Judgment below was rendered for the
plaintiff; that the defendant was liable
to contribution as co-surety with the
plaintiff on the note for one half the
amount paid by the plaintiff Edgerton
and D. W. Paul for plaintiff; Prout and
R. s. Peabody for defendant.
The arguments Of Messrs. Peabody
and Paul, we may be allowed to say,
were characterized by uncommon self
possession as maiden speeches." and
showed cOmmendable study and
knowledge of the case.
Daniel Lincoln .. Jacob EdgertOn.
! This was an action on the case against
, the defendant who was late Sheriff for
the neglect and default of his deputy, in
levying and serving a certain writ in
favor of the plaintiff as. one Stanley
The general issue was pleaded and notice
of special matter in defence. r. r.
Thrall for plaintiff; Briggs and Nichol-
son for defendant.
Adm. of George s. Allen .. Thrall and
| Edgerton. This was a petition pray
ing that the court would order an amend
ment in q certain execution, issued by
the County Court, wherein a mistake
had been made.
The mistake occurred in issuing the
execution in favor of George S. Allen
instead of Eben. Fisher Adm. of Allen as
r. r. Thrall, Property was attached
upon the original writ to large amount
so that it became necessary to issue the
execution within thirty days after court
to hold by that attachment. The exc
cution was therefore hastily issued in
due time, but with the above mistake.
The error was kept secret from the Sher.
if and Clerk until the thirty days had
, expired The application to amend was
granted below and the case came up or
exceptions by the defendants. Dewey
& Joyce and Phelps for plaintiff; Prout
I and Thrall for defendant.
l Joseph Sheldon .. Ralph Perkins. This
) was an action Of trespass, for breaking
and entering the plaintiffs close il
Fairhaven, cutting and carrying away
trees therefrom. The testimony involv
ed a question of conflicting title t.
= certain land. After able arguments OF
q both sides, the jury below brought in ;
verdict for the plaintiff to recover $21 Oh
damages. After verdict below the plain
0 tiff filed motion for new trial found
Y ed on the affidavit of B. W. Burt, one o
the iurorS which affidavit WAS reiecteC