Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1870-10-11
Orleans County Court.

The October Term of the Orleans County
Court commenced its session at Irasburgh
on Tuesday, Oct. 4th. Hon. Asahel Peck,
Presiding Judge.
Judge Peck charged the grand jury at
the opening of the Court, and instructed
them in regard to the mode of their inves-
tigation to the kind and amount of evil
dence they must have in order to find a
true bill, and in this connection said that
they must have such an amount of evidence
as would, if uncontradicted, convince a
petit jury of the guilt of the respondent
The Court instructed the jury at length in
regard to their duty, in regard to indicting
persons who have violated the law, in re-
gard to the traffic in intoxicating liquors,
and was very explicit in his directions to
them to indict all town liquor agents who
sell liquor contrary to law, and for other
than for medicinal and mechanical purpo-
ses.
John A. Sawyer, of Greensboro, was ap-
pointed foreman of the grand jury.
The first case tried was William Newton
VS. A. J. Rowell's estate.
This was an action of assumpsit for S671,
and being an appeal from the decision of
the commissioners on the estate. Plea non
assumpsit and that there had been a settle
ment. 1t appeared that Mr.. Rowell had
collected of Liberty Aldrich quite large
amount of money for the plff., and this
sum constituted the plff's claim against
the def. The def. claims that Mr.. Row
ell signed note for the plf and payable
to one Green, that Mr. ROwell was COM
PEELED to pay this note, and that Mr.. Row.
ell had other claims against the plf., that
there was a general settlement of matters
of deal at MansOnville, p. O., and, that
there was a balance found due Mr. Rowell,
and he took 80 cents on the dollar of the
balance of the plh., and all was settled
The plf. admitted that there was a settle
ment, but that it did not include any Of the
amount claimed in this action-and the
claim remained unsettled. This question
as TO what was included in the settlement
was the main point in the case, and on
this point the evidence was very conflict
ing.
Verdict for plf. for $50 damages and
costs.
w. D. Crane and J. 7. Allen for plff
J. l.. Edwards and H. G. Wilson for deft.
Samuel D. Pendar vs.. town of Derby
This was an action on the case for dam
ages sustained by the plf. on account o
the insufhciency of the old bridge acros.
Memphremagog Lake at Newport. Plea
the general issue. The deit. claimed tina
the towns of Newport and Derby wer
Jointly liable to keep the bridge in repair
And the court ruled pro forma that tn
action should have been brought agains
both of these towns. And the case will
pass to the Supreme Court.
W. d. Crane and J.. Grout for plff. J. l
Edwards and J. T. Allen for deft
Charles Comstock vs. J. D. Harding
estate.
This was an action Of assumpsit on tw
prommissory notes, and came to the Count
Court on an appeal from the decision {
the commissioners on the estate of J. L
Harding The plf. claimed that the note
on which the suit was brought were los
and offered evidence which he elaine
tended to show the loss. The plf. ais
claimed the right to testify as to the COZ
rectness of the date of his charges on h
book, to which the deft objected on th
ground that the statutes of Vermont onl
allows the living party to testify as t
whose handwriting Of the charges ar
and when made, in actions on book accour
or when the matter at issue ana on trial
proper matter Of book account. The Cou
ruled that the plfr could testify.
The deft. claimed that the plff. had nt
shown the loss of notes, and therefor
should not be allowed to put in parol ev
dence in regard to them, The Court su
r tanned the deft's claim. And the plf II,
having sufficient testimony in READINGS
set the case not for the jury, and asked an
obtained a continuance.
, y. T. Sheafe and J. Grout for plf. J.
t Edwards and W. d. Crane for def.