Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1868-07-10

\ 4
which the plaintiff claimed to recover
of the defendant as endorser of note
signed by the Boston Lumber Com
pany, and payable to the defendant,
or his order. The note was for $500,
and it was presented to the bank for
discount by W. D. Tyler, who was at
that time the clerk Of the company,
Mr.. Tyler received the money and de-
livered it to the wife of the defend
ant. 1t appeared that the Lumber
Company were owing the defendant
about $240, and he was urging and
pressing payment of his claim; that
he had delivered logs sufficient lii the
immediate vicinity of their mill to
make the debt due him $500, but that
a portion of these logs to the value
of $50, had not come to the posses
sion of the company. The company
agreed to raise $500 for Mr.. Fassett,
and he being sick sent his wife to the
Office of the company, and instructed
her to bring the money to him. She
came to the Office and inquired Of Mr..
Tyler if the money was ready for her
husband, and he replied that it was,
but before he could pay her the mon
ey it would be necessary for her to
write her husbands name Oh the back
of a paper. The plaintiff claimed
that Tyler told her that it was a note.
The testimony Of the defendants wife,
and another witness was that he did
not tell her that it was a note, and
that being informed by Tyler that it
would be right to sign her husband )
name, she wrote bis name on the back
of the paper. The defendants evil
dence tended to show that the defend
arts wife did not know what paper
she signed, but supposed it was re-
ceipt or a check; that she carried the
money to her husband, and told him
about writing his name on the back Of
a paper, and he supposed she had sim
ply endorsed a check, and that the
company had paid him what was due
; him.
This transaction occurred in March
, 1867, and on the 22d day Of May fol-
, lowing, the Boston Lumber Company
failed; then the defendant was intor
med that the paper his wife signed wa,
note, and that the bank would hole
him for the payment of it. The pItl'.
2 evidence tended to show that the cash
Ter of the bank was not informed vi
the manner in which the defendant
name was written on the back Of The
5 note, and supposed that it was the dc
: PENDANTS signature. The pIf claimed
that there were some circumstance
which should have indicated to the de
PENDANT before the failure of the com
: pany, that his name was on the note
!, and that he should have attempted tt
t collect his debt of the company, am
! also that he ratified the transaction oI
his wife.
, The jury were instructed that VII
could not sign or endorse notes witt
out an authority from her HUSBAND
t and that there was no evidence in tn
case that the defendant gave his wifi
any authority to endorse his name, an
that the plaintiff could recover onl
on the ground that the defendant ha
= ratified vvhot his ,,-;r.. Led Iona
' The trial was attended by 4 larg
number of ladies, who seemed inter
ested in the question whether a hu,
:, band could be made liable where hi
wife was induced to sign his name III
/ der the circumstances detailed in thi
S case. The jury were out five minute
8 and returned a verdict for defendan
{ J. Fl. Prentiss and n. 7. Sheate fC
plaintiff. Edwards & Dickerman fC
defendant.
N Clara j. Langmaid VS.. Tow
of Derby. This was an action to It
cover damages for injuries receive
s. by the plaintiff while travelling on tn
re highway between West Derby an
- Derby Center, and near the residen(
n OF Charles B. Child Esq. The defe
- dant plead the general issue, an
claimed that the town was not not
~ fed within thirty days after the acc
w dent, that the plaintiff intended
OF claim damages as the statute in SUI
he cases provides. The town furth
:, claimed that the road was good al
sufficient, and not out Of repair, al
"' the plaintiff was negligent in drivin
The defendant while passing a tea
was thrown from her sleigh with SUI
~ force as to break her arm, and Othe
or wise injuring her. There was a larl
OF mass Of evidence in regard to t
l.. condition of the road, which was son
ror what conflicting, also medical eviden
49, in reference to the nature of the plt
N injury.
The court instructed the jury tn
as if the injury was incurred OF accou
,lu of the insufficiency of the highway t
:, plff. should recover, but if the neg
no gence of the plff. contributed towar
IN producing the injury even if the 70
al was insufficient, then the plff. cot
res not recover.
es Verdict for plff. 5000 damages a
- costs. w. ID. Crane and R @ Bent
'n0 for plff. Edwards q Dickerman
Ill defendant.
CIV EGGs.-A hen in the employ of \
VIM. Lang, of this town, has laid t
& eggs which each measure 7 incl
eir round the shortest way, and s 3
o,S strong, the other way; and they ea
=, weigh 4 ounces.
his A WORK OF GREAT INTEREST
no. best book we have seen for more til
l. lDuop x,oaro bIpfr otNDci1