The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1866-02-13

~ II efsff'aeNi = fs4ftaNt Afftttf - WE -
Huaas. fsm shuss rslsu shs flleuiae fast'
afgsat IA 1slT 1866. Us piass'5a ed sns Nv.
sl.ss y sss4s.. susu0s .ais = Fastasfia 3 O. 81,
fsfrcss g egefaiiaE So sisEs rats brirtsH
uuulss. Ft aa3 NsftA Asanls q Az $50,
tlfy slsts5 tltir lettavt 80 i3 @ass % safIi
.at pee. sasy rpesi,lbg 8 part fay@fnf fbs tTa
aates ia qatsica. Nhssh Wcn ua3f payable &
LalAa 3 G.e.eI 81 leaur 0n Ils - flag.
81 1861. Gsaatll tcd. sel 'he 3tfadaat vas
agpqiassl Aialu.araiss sra - such eeas Int
p-ssssss.n & rs tss uate. iu quraen. Before
she eoamtpoenept q ihs sait. tie F's.atG de.
uau5ei ne reus e., partnership properly, bai
lhs aelsslah, ryf.selis deliver tea aai bed
thsa . ihsrfogeiy fibe lsgeassl re coaa-
y Coufi reudeul j. seWeut 20 goma.p hyr
Z the defendant. he Flaiat.a excepted, sod ils
case Was passcd to the ssprcme Court ~ ossis.
isn. Iiwas eoniebisi 10 arguuent ~ tshalf q
sbs plalnHG "a, ihe partnership d1 uol esasf
until tie death q Gosltll ihsl tie notes
T vsre paIia0slup property, aud THAI uqen 'ae
death u Copdtii Tie surviving partner wa eai.-
81 to their rossessieB. On ibs other s'ts il ss'
eosieudvl that the partnership ceased when ihs
business ior Which il vas entered into was closed
.aat lhs poies being ms,le payable 70 GeOdell a.
q tine vhen they eers selling their properly and
jisishe he prosevls. was evidence ihs. they
we're 10 bce5asilersi his prefertJ that IL any
event, the frfasal q The defendant 10 deliver up
ths uoses whiis responsible Zoe them as admins
TRAITOR, aud that ground wal. not sufficient es-
idsnce ~ conversion to maintain this action
Judgement d the County Court reversed and
judgement br plaintiff rendered Opinion W
Judge Pisrpout. Dlyeoport FOR plaiehf; s,rse-
ter for defesdaut
Elrard Grant Hubbard Oakts The facts
in this case with the main points In the judges
cha &c and the exceptions Thereto, were reported
in these columns at tie time efibe trial last be-
eemaer Tie argument before the Supreme
court was mainly IN relation to tie charge Of The
judge below to the effect that the remark Of the
plaintiff TO his wife that she might have some Of
the household furniture without specifying what
articles, was too indefinite to be considered a IL
Etticf iVl llki 10 bltAh itN vac HVhsN tAAN vac
furniture. The Court held tie instructions c)r-
,ect aud affirmed the decision below. Opinion BY
july Peck pfes,ou for plaintiff Davenport
FOR defendant
Psrt- Harroof o. James Boardnda, .fpp,i-
iIai.--ln November. 1861, the probate court for
,he district Il Bennington declared James Board
man ~ Insane person. on application Of the Sc-
ectmcn Of Bennington, and Al the solicitation d
hs wife aud frenls, George " Harmon was mp
pointed aud became his gu,rdian BoArdmin
appealed from tie decree, and at lie December
FERN II the County Court. 1874, jury decided
that he was not aud had not been insane. liar
mon continued to discharge hsbatics as guardian
until Noy. list, So, when he resigned, aud Perez
lIarwood was appointed. Harwood continual TO
act a. guardian until the rendition Of the verdict
ab oSe mentioned. The town instiia ell the pro.
cecdings, and neither Harmon nor liarwool ia
Cured any personal liability GA the 2Gth q
April, 1864, The probate count allowed imwoai's
account as guardian. Bmrinm appcIlel ion
the decree. The case came tcf1re The County
Court Al the Juue term Of 1861, AMI n Cauhcl
was appointed commissioner to take aud report
tho accoun'. at the December term tie report 6f
the commissioner was returned, nhd The Cohr
rendered Judgment that the items which acsruei
b fore the decree Of pril &C. 1861, shosll b. AZ
lowed, anilthat the items which accrue Since aud
were never presented 10 The prob.te court should
be dsallowed Exceptions BY both p4ties.-
judgement # the County Court reversed, aud
judgement rendered fJr tie plaintiff 10 recover the
euire account Opinion by Judge Wilson lar
mon and Gardner for plaintiff Davenport for
defendant
Probate Coari q Benajh Sandy III MAS
an act ion Of dsbt on a bond executed April,
log4 b iae defendant 10 the pro5a.e Cour iqr
the district VI Bennington, 10 secure the faithful
discharge Of his duties as trustee of one NAucy
Corey, Tbs defendant filed motion 10 dismiss
the sat because the court had no right to try the
satas for the rsqsOn that the Court Of Chaucery
had not granted perGissio0 to the plaiutif 10 sac
tue bond The Iounty Court rendered judge
meatpfo forAa that Tie motion be sustained and
the aoron dismissed i Ihe statute requiring tie
pssniissjO0 Of the Csnrt d Ch.neery 10 sue tbe
bond was passed 10 1866. aud il WAS oonieoded
that il could not effect the right to sue bond ex
esuicd twenty years before. Judgement of Tie
County Court reversed and case remanded. 0pn-
ion by Judge Perpont. Tel RosnsOn aud Ly-
man for plaintiff; Sibley aud G.rdncr for de-
PENDANT
fusfia p Graham, appellant =. E'iafe Of
Nehemiah chandisf Thus was an appeal from
the decision Of the Commissioners on the estate Of
Nehemiah Chandler di.alowing certain claims
preseutei BY the plaintiff The County Court al
the December term. s64, appointed Harmon Can
field and George w Harmon auditors TO examine I
aud adiast the accounts between the parties. A
suit eomneneel by the plaintiff in this case,
agains, Nehemiah Chandler and George Chand- /
Ter 10 1870, was at The same time pending, aud
vas BY agreement Of the plaintiff and surviving 1
defendant referred to the same persons. From
the report Of the referees il appears that Nehe- .
miah Chandler ownsl farm IN winhall which
be sOassyel 70 his SOD George X. by iced fraud .
ulest aud void as 10 red.;ors On the Il, Of Jau-
nary, sdi, he agreed With lhe PLAIN, a who was
his son-n-lA las. thai il ,he plaintiff woald furnish
hin aioHes 20 ply his deO,s aud come and i've