Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1868-04-24
Windham County Court.

| Inc apilI term VI NOuIi iui TINS c0uh
ty commenced on Thursday afternoon
following, being the shortest term we re-
member, with perhaps an exception dur
ing the war.
Judge Barrett of Woodstock, presid-
ing Judge, and Hon. Peter w. Deane, OF
Grafton, assistant Judge The first case
tried was,
Adm. of Geo H. Roberts Estate ".
Gilbert II. Mann. The testimony in
this case tended to show that in March,
1865, defendant went from Brattleboro
to Springfield, Mass, to sell plaintiff a
lot of furs that plaintiff, who was n fur
dealer, declined to purchase, as the mar
ket was declining, but that an arrange
inent was entered into between the par
ties by which defendant left the skins
billed by him at S347 and plaintiff ad-
vanced him $500 on them as loan. De
PENDANT claimed in defence that there
was future agreement by which plain
tiff was to notify him in three days if he
declined to purchase the skins. Plaintiff
claimed that there was talk about three
days notice but no agreement to that eff
feet, and further that this talk was on
Wednesday morning, March 22d, and
that plaintiff deposited letter in the
post office, Saturday the 25th, about two
o'clock P. NJ. notifying defendant of his
refusal to purchase. The plaintiff called
on defendant TO refund the $500 and take
back the skins and upon defendants re-
tusal the skins were sent to market and
sold for 1920 and this suit brought to re-
cover the balance of $50 and interest.
The case was submitted to the jury to
find whether or not there was an agree
ment that defendant should be notified
in three days. Should the verdict be for
defendant the plaintiff reserves the qucs-
ton for the Supreme Court whether with
in the meaning of the law the defendant
was not notified in three days. Verdict
for defendant. Field & Tyler for plain
tiff. Mann, Howe & Davenport for de-
fendant
+. O. Durham VS.. Roswell Powers
Action for slanderous words. Plea, gen
eral issue. 1t appeared that sometime in
1866, case was tried before justice
jury in Westminster between the plaintiff
and one Horace Carpenter. The defen- |
dant in this action was one of the Jurors
in the justice case. The plaintiff claim
ed, and his evidence tended to show that
the defendant after the jury had retired
charged that the plaintiff some time pre-
vious had lied and deceived the insurance
agent and thus procured his buildings
insured for large sum and then burned |
them up and got his money. This the
defendant denied The defendant asked
he Court to charge the jury that no ac-
ion could pe based upon words spoken
by the jury while III the jury room,
making up their verdict. The Court
charged the jury that evidence given in
Court was proper to be considered by
ury, but when they discussed other mat
.ers not given in evidence, they were act
ing in violation of their duty, and any
uryman was responsible for slanderous
words spoken in the jury room the same
as if spoken elsewhere. Verdict for
plaintiff, $24166. II. L. Stoughton. A. /
and Chas. L, Arnold for plain .
tiff. c. B. Eddy, II. Ii. Wheeler aud !
Nathan Hall for defendant.
This was the last jury case and after
attending to the Court cases the County
Court adjourned Thursday night.