The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1868-02-18

ffHHatH 70 AfsasA atatA NHNH EfHs aatH
fs'mus 70 a. sppef roaw 3 wtscs ~ thcn thst
tlgui ivriFs ltask thss alehi ibsv 80 fse
strssa, spssf tie Yass So threv sssf.w an err
ian arh ~ ua48~ts fss ifpn las .rhi = )
hafang tws1lus ssges ans hail n.lc' distant iasy
vsfs ttls 70 90 ths Fresaai ai''iuotiy ard kae.
tbeul r. BE- ihs 4sfsaassls. Al x 10 ssfgps4sts
aie8 thai tksy err ti's ha4se - 10 plzntf
lsat stt al.3 iasns5uaes s,ldsboe isudsg 3 sbas
tsai fass SER rs rsr51ss o,her places a t5e heof
ue uv,pts, was committed lg4sr objection IL
"a, 3tla.aaris lie gass't1 atraaBest cr3sags q
saaw rrst.on' sefsaf Z hossy towards hu %
+ ths port ~ ne as.eulsn,f. oae "a TIE aeio0aau.s
sid bs ha5 had as ts8eu',y w.ih ibs pialsti6
,aetp i rs's'icr 70 s has -kbile uhich shc had
siol tu, The plaintiff 1sfe8ucsl eYipsnce q show
thattks witness hnssIl sscrt,cl the hay kn.fe %
her premises ard 'lieu procured warrant % searla
~ d; 70 the admission q which Testimony the
defendants ctjscted. Evidence offered ny the
sfsndsris ,bati.e hoase a tie plaintiff bal been
assaulted Is similar gnanner sfore, was eHcisdel
by the court The eiendan,t requested TIE Court
70 instruct the jury that tss plsiuu n could obiy
recover tie Ae,ual damage and not exemplary
damages bat he Cour, refused 50 to charge. The
jury found lof ,he plaintiff 10 recover $500, aud
costs. Exceptions allowed and cause ordered to
he supreme Court Flagg aud Davenport for
plaut6; hgliug and Sibley ior deiendtnis Win
the Court.
4 Thomas McD1njels g. Solomon Pratt.
This was an action Of assumpsit on
eight promissory notes, endorsed by the
defendant who duly received notice OF
their non payment and protest. No
affidavit Of defence was filed under the
rule Of the Court; and after judgement
for the plaintiff, Vim. 5. Southworth
was appointed to ascertain the sum due,
On hearing, the defendant offered the
deposition Of the maker Of the notes to
show that partial payment, had been
made, though not Endorsed; which eYl-
dence was excluded. The county
court ordered that the report be re-
committed to the referee 10 find and
report the sum paid; to which order
the plaintiff excepted. The counsel for
the plaintiff claimed that exceptions
might properly be taken to an order oi
the county court directing the referee
to take evidence not legally admissible;
bnt the court held that the case was
not properly before them, and ordered
t IL treated as misentry. Potter and
Hartman for plaintiff; ard Gardner and
Sihley for defendant.
Ed,rin H. BigeloD q. Seth II. Rising.
This was an action Of trespass on lands
in Rupert. The plaintiff introduced
deeds showing his title to one undivi.
ded half Of the premises in controversy
. and evidence to show that he cut WOOD
, thereon in 1864. The defendant in
! troduced deeds which he claimed IN
! cluded the premises, and gave evidence
; to show that be and his grantors hae
r been in possession of the premises IN
: der those deeds more than fifteen years
! and that the possession had not beer
disturbed except once, when the plain
tiff cut wood upon it, which the defen
dant drew away us alleged in the dec
! laratlon. 1t appeared that the Other
/ moity under the plaintiff chain Of title
was in John Z. Youlen, who
was not joined in the suit. The Cour
. held that the plaintiff could not main
tain the action alone and that the non
d ioinder Of Youlen might be taken nd
Q vantage Of under the general issue
b and directed verdict for the defen
E dant. The plaintiff excepted, and thu
case was ordered to the supreme cour
, for reyision-S ibley and Southwortl
for plaintiff; Miner and Davenport fol
defendant With the court.
Rufus Hall U A. IT. Ray This wa
an action Of trespass in which the plain
: tiff sought to recover for one pair Of OK
bows, chains, one ox-sled, 2 plows
! ono OK wagon, one ox-yoke, and on,
i shot gun. The defendant justified I'M
' der writ of execution against th
!. plaintiff 1t appeared that the plain
e tiff was farmer in Searsburg, ant
d owned a yoke of oxen; aud that tn
q property specified was all be had 0
= that kind 1t appeared from the de
defendants return on the writ Of exc
y cution that be advertised TO sell tn
Q goods "at or near" the Plaintiffs dwell
ing -house, and that he in fact sold then
at another house about GO rods distant
The plaintiff claimed that the good
: lowed upon were exempt, and that th
!. proceedings of the defendant we're s
lar irregular as to make him trespas
! ser The court held that the article
: levied upon were not exempt; and I
n this decision the plaintiff excepted :
III The court further held that the defen
+ dants proceedings were so irregula
It that he became trespasser; to whicl
E decision the defendant excepted. Judge
4 ment that the plaintiff recover S79.7t
{ with interest Exceptions allowed an
y case sent to the supreme court. Fol
: lett and Gardner for plaintiff; Dayen
; port for defendant With the codrt.
Reuben Z. Htud Z. DaBjci Spencer. :
:, This was an action of assumpsit on
!. promissory note, and was tried by th
!. court at the last December term. /
4 appeared that about the LIST Of July
/, 1866, one Robert T. Stickles entere,
: into an agreement with the plaintiff ant
e one Crawford Woodward, by whicI
le they were to furnish him sheep to driy
3, to Columbia county, y y, TO sell, at
r price 10 he agreed upon before the sheel
Is were driven from Arlington, where th
. plaintiff resided. The sheep we're t
: remain the property ofHurd and Wood
2 ward uutil the contract price was paid