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

was an action OF trover for a wagon an
harness, with a count in case. Plea tn
general issue. The plaintiffs evidenc
tended to prove that as deputy sher
he attached the wagon and harness i
controversy, on writ in favor of Ger
. Il. Holmes vs. one VIM. Hull, and tn
defendant and Mr.. A. B. Nelson receipt
ed the property. The plaintiff on ma
king demand of the wagon and harnes
received only couple of the wheels o
the wagon and no harness. The plaintiff
offered testimony that the wagon wa
left exposed TO the weather through tht
winter and summer, and that the boys or
the fourth of July in generous outburs
of patriotism, threw it over the abutment'
of the bridge on Rock Island. The de.
PENDANTS evidence tended to show that
the wagon was never much damaged un.
til it was almost entirely destroyed by
the falling of his shed in Canada. He
claimed that in an unprecedented tenn
pest bis shed was blown down upon the
wagon, and that the wagon was destroyed
by an act of God, and therefore be was
not liable. There was great deal of
conflicting testimony-as is usual in such
cases.
The case was ably argued by John l..
Edwards and T. P. Redfeld for plaintiff,
and by Benz. II. Steele and Geo. N. Dale
for defendant. Verdict for plaintiff for
$109,38 and costs.
Madison Stebbins vs.. Nelson Pratt
This was an action of trespass for assault
and battery. The defence was that the
plaintiff struck the first blow, and was at
tempting to pass through the defendants
door yard without leave, and against the
wish Of the defendant, and that he used
only sufficient force TO prevent him from
passing through. The evidence of plain
tiff showed that the plaintiff was passing
through the door yard of'the defendant
on his way TO plaintiffs sugar place
having been permitted to pass through
there before-when the defendant rushed
from the house with club, called by
plaintiff an evener, and furiously called
out, "S,op you id Niger" and al
most Immediately struck the plaintiff a
blow on the head which felled him TO the
ground. Tie plaintiff had pair of oxen
with him at the time, and the defendant
claimed that be ordered the plaintiff to
stop, but he would not and commenced to
urge his oxen on through the yard. The
plaintiff claimed that he simply endeav-
ored to keep bis cattle from running away,
they being frightened by the furious on
set of the defendant. The defendant al
so claimed that the plaintiff struck him
across the face with bis whip before he
struck the plaintiff. The plaintiff disa.
vowed any intention of forcibly entering
upon the defendants grounds, or of pass,
ing through without his permission.
The court charged the jury that if one
attempts to enter upon the land of anoth-
err foTcibly, the owner has the right to use
sufficient force to prevent him, and that
the owner is only liable in case he uses
more force than was necessary; that in
reference to using force in self defence,
the law did not measure so nicely. The
man who is attacked has sot time to Judge
what force to use, SO that il he uses more
force than was necessary to defend him
self, be must not be found guilty of using
excessive force, unless it is most clearly
made out that he used very excessive
force. He charged that if the defendant
was guilty, the plaintiff was not only en-
titled to the actual damage be suffered
from the blows, but also to exemplary
damages. This is to depend somewhat
on the moral condition of the parties.
whether it was wanton and unprovoked
attack, or whether it was brought on by
some act of the plaintiff.
The jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff of $500 and costs. |
W. d. Wilson, II. c. Wilson and b.
II. Steele for plaintiff; Young, Edwards
g. Dickerman, and T. P. Redfeld for de-
PENDANT.
Porter Human VS.. Hubbard Joslyn.-
This was an action Of general assumpsi
for extra interest. Plea the general is
sue and statute Of limitations. This suit
appeared to be legal fght between tlco
money lenders, and showed that the usu-
ny laws of the State we're not much of
restriction in lending money. 1t was
hard case and verdict was rendered for
plaintiff for $50, Is and costs. {
Edwards &c Dickerman, and Geo. n. /
Dale for plaintiff; Steele & Robinson for
defendant :