Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1868-10-02
windhnm County Court.

HilS, iutS VI w urusDorO, ucCtuseu.
The evidence of plaintiffs tended to show
that the said George A. died March II,
1867; that few days thereafter they
were appointed Administrators of said os.
tate; that soon after their appointment
they sold to said defendant about $500
worth of the property belonging to said
estate, and gave defendant possession of
the same about April /, 1867. The de-
PENDANT claimed, and his evidence tend
ed to show, that about one year before
he sold this same property to said George
A., who was his son, and that it had new
er been paid for; that the said George
A. during his last sickness resold the
property in question to him, with the I'M
Outstanding and agreement that the
amount was to apply in part payment of
said George AS Indebtedness to him,
and that pursuant to such sale he took
said property into his possession about
March l. The jury returned verdict
for plaintiffs to recover $l543 damages.
Wheeler and Stoughton for plaintiffs
Davenport and Stoddard for defendant.
Norman Webster VS.. A. B. Melendy.
Action on the case for slanderous words.
The plaintiff claimed that defendant
charged him with stealing harness and
shearing horses tail. Defendant denied
speaking the words. Verdict for plaintiff
s5S3.00. Stoughton, Davenport, and
Howe for plaintiff. Field & Tyler, and
Wheeler for defendant.
Joseph H. Peck VS.. Stratton. Action
against town for town bounty. The
court ordered verdict for defendant on
the testimony adduced, to which the
plaintif'exeepted stoddard and Slough
ton for plaintiff: Wheeler and Daven-
port for defendant
E. H. Read vs.. Eliakim Amidon.-
Action on the case against inn-keeper
for pair of fur gloves. This action
was tried before a justice in Jamaica,
and afterwards on appeal tried before
the county court at the Sept. term 1867,
which trial resulted in verdict for de-
PENDANT. At the Supreme court, Febru-
airy, 1868, the judgment was reversed
and, new trial granted. The testimo-
ny of plaintiff tended to show that he
went to defendants inn as witness in a
justice court that he placed his gloves
and overcoat on bench, no other ac
comodations for slowing such things be
ing provided; that he had dinner and
: horse keeping, and was, in fact, guess
of defendant; that on starting home, he
discovered the loss of his gloves anc
called on defendant for them, and thai
search was made which proved unavail
I ing. The tcstimonyof defendant tendet
to show that said gloves were neve
; placed in his custody; that he knew
nothing of plaintiffs intention to be
come his guest until he called for dinner
/ some hours after his arrival; that TIL
gloves were used during the day by plain
tiff and his brothers that the glove
were worn away by plaintiff at his de
4 parture; and that he knew nothing o
e their loss until some days afterwards
: Verdict for plaintiff, 1919, Stoughton
!, Wheeler, and Stoddard for. plaintiff
Davenport and Kellogg for defendant.
= State VS.. George Shearer and Samue
Fisk. Indictment for larceny. The Re
n spondents pleaded not guilty and WEI
. put on trial. The evidence in the cas-
Il tended to show that TIE respondents 0
g the night of August 2Sth, 1868, stol
1t from the pastures of I. E. Burdick an
|. one Ashcraft, in the south part OF Gul
N ford, two yoke of oxen; drove them thu
v night up the Green River road to witt
,e in about three miles of Wilmington vi
r, lage, where they remained secreted
ID the woods all day Saturday. On satu
day evening they started again, drivin
said oxen directly through Wilmingto
or village, en- route for New York, where
to is supposed they intended to dispose
ly them. That the people in the vicinl
I'D where the oxen were stolen started
y pursuit on Saturday, following the ira
to and upon their arrival at Wilmingt
as procured further assistance and follow
go on, overtaking the oxen and the respon
in ents with them, about eight miles W.
lie of Wilmington. on the road to BENIN
ng ton. The respondents commended tt
ut they were hired by parties unknown
for drive the oxen to Bennington, and tt
they did not know that the oxen w
ity stolen property, and never saw them
ut til said oxen were near Wilmington
he Verdict, guilty, and they were remand
sit to iail to await sentence. States Att
* ney for prosecution. Davenport and
for E. Arnold for respondents.
he Beriah Wheeler, ct ais, vs.. Townshel
zee Action on the case for damages by r
3D. ,,lo;,.;Hre WAGON breaking throu