Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1869-01-05
Orleans County Court.

L. Coburn VS.. town of Troy.-This
suit was long contested trial; and
the case was aoly argued by the coun-
sci on both sides. The court charged
the jury that if the accident was the
Joint result of want of ordinary care
on the part of the plaintiff, and insult
fciency of the highway, the plaintiff
could not recover; that highway In
village, or where there was great
amount of travel should be in better
repair than a road where there was
but little travel. The court further
defined ordinary care to be the care
that reasonably prudent man would
exercise under similar circumstances,
and not the care that very timid
man would take, nor the care that a
reckless man would use. TIE jury
came in disagreed after being out two
days.
W. d. Crane, l.. 81. Bisbee & Ed
wards & Dickerman for plaintiff, Il.
c. Wilson, G. FL. Benton, R. G. Ben
ton & L. P. Redfeld for defendent.
4. Cook VS.. G. Tracy.-This was
an action of trespass for cutting down
trees and tearing down fences on plff's
land. The defendent plead the gen
eral issue, and claimed that the cut
ting down oftrees and removing of
fences was done by him, as highway
surveyor, under the direction of the
selectmen of Newport, and that he
committed no trespasS on the pltf's
land, This case disclosed the fact as
to the precise location of the road, as
laid out; and whether the defendent
went out of the limits of the highway.
1t seemed to be a mere technical tres
pass that the defendent had committed.
Verdict for plaintiff for one cent dam
ages and costs.
w. W. Grout & l.. Fl. Bisbee for
plaintiff, W. d. Crane, Edwards &
Dickerman for defendent.
VIM. FL. Rand vs.. Jonathan Page.
This was an action of assumpsit on
a promissory note for 5000 signed by
the defendent. Plea the general is
sue. The defendent claimed that he
gave the note because he was threat
ened by the plaintiff with an indict-
ment for smuggling, and that the pote
was III settlement of a prosecution for
smuggling and was therefore illegal
and void. 1t seemed that one Good
all had assaulted the plaintiff while
the plaintiff was in discharge of his
duty as a custom house officer. and
the plaintiff claimed that the defend
ent gave him the note III suit in set
Element of plaintiff for damages by the
assault of GOOdall, and that he die
not threaten the defendent with an in
indictment as claimed by the plaintiff
The testimony was very conflicting a,
to the point whether the note was t(
settle the plaintiffs private claim fol
the assault, or to settle the prOsecu
ton in behalf of the government
! The court charged the jury that if The
note was given, as claimed by the
plaintiff, to settle private damages, i
was a valid note; but if it was giveI
to settle prosecution by the United State
it was illegal and void, and contrary t.
public policy. Also, that if part of tn
consideration OF note was legal and
part illegal the note was invalid.
Verdict for detendent for his cost.
l.. Day vs.. II. Cowdray.-This was al
action Of assumpsit for work and labor o
the plaintiff son. 1t appears that the de
PENDENT is a tinman, in st. Johnsbury, Vt
and that the plaintiff son had worked 70
, the detendent few months for the pun
pose Of learning the tinsmith trade TIL
defendants evidence tended to prove tina
the son agreed to come into his shop an
work for his board, and learn the trade
and that he was not to pay him any wages
: The plaintiffs evidence contradicted tn
, evidence of defendants in regard to the W.
l ges, and he claimed that his son should /
v paid. The plaintiff also claimed that
his son was a minor he could not make
e trade with the defendent without his fail
4 er's consent, and that he was entitled
pay for what the sons services were wort
Z, The jury were out at the time of goiT
: to press.