The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1871-02-14


.ms1 aF7tslot ,bs p.Ea'ln snlsh knew
h.s proceeding g The Grand Jursr VA
ufHc device - ob,s5a Possesiou q The
.eraaa ~ n,e planuH. BOT BALDWIN did
aaf After BE arrest Is Was deemed best
10 secure bio paskcl-boak containing mo-
aey sal De wAa seized BY three persons
Ger Hlst purpose. upon which be voiun.
,ArIF surrendered bis po1ket-book 70 bis
brother We NAs heB kept by smi,h ua-
tl sae peat day, when be WAS taken 10
BraHIghgrg by Baldwin, aud NarsiudAle
tle was kept Ia The Asylum ~ that place
nearly month. when be escaped and
returned bome on foot, much improved
Boa mrutai condition, but suffering from
rhaumatsm caused b. exposure. The
defendants acted "a good iaith throughout
The Referee Held that tie plaintiff had DO
cause of action, bat that II the Court
thought 0ihersise, his damages should be
So The County Court rendered Judge
meui upop the report that the defendants
recover their costs I'm The supreme
Court. the counsel for the plaintiff con-
tended thar although the friends Of an in
sane person. and the authorities OF his
iowH. bad right % secure his person 10
prevent immediate danger, they had no
right to take measures for his permanent
confinement without pursuing their APP
p.ieaaon for Che appointment ola legal
guardian. The counsel for the defendants
cuntendcd that both justice and public
policy required that those who took
measures for the safety and proper treat
mout of pcr-ous who were really insane
aud Danger to the community, should
I De protected from suits brought against
I them by the persons benefited, when they
had recovered their reason. The Judge
ment OF the County Court was reversed
and judgement rendered that the plain
/ uf recover So damages and his costs.
( Opinion by Judge Peck. Roberts for
4 Plaintiff Miner for defendants.
/ Oatmoa and Buck rs George Fourier,
ApL
This was an action of trcspass upon the
freehold, aud was tried at the last June
Term ofthe County Court; the court d.
rccting verdict for the defendent. II
appears from the exceptions that one Of
original proprietors of the town of Sun
derland was the Society for the Propoga.
ton Of the Gospel in Foreign Parts and
that over nine thousand acres of land in
that town are still undivided and COM
mon The defendant first surveyed.
marked and took possession of, that por-
/ ton of the undivided land which was in
controversy; but the plaintiffs endeayored
/ 10 show record title from the Propoga-
( ton Society. In 1881, the Archbishop
Of Canterbury authorized Abram Brown
son, Daniel Chapman, and others, by pow
er Of attorney, to control and dispose of
the lands belonging to the Society in
Vermont, with the power of appointing
sub-agcnts. This power Of attorney was
never recorded. In 1888, Mayor Hawley
Of Manchester was appointed sub-sgent
to control and dispose of the Society
lands in the County Of Bennington. The
power Of attorney to Mayor Hawley was
recorded in Salisbury, and was after.
wards lost. In 1859, Hawley gave a
| perpetual lease Of the Society's lands In
Sunderland TO Giles b. Bacon; and in
1865 Bacon decided and surveyed out 10
the Plaintiffs the land in controversy. In
1870, the plaintiffs procured copy Of the
power Of attorney TO Hawley from the
records of SALISBURY, and had the same
recorded in Sunderland. The Judge
ment Of the County Court was affirmed.
I Opinion by Judge RedHeld. Miner for
Plaintiff; Fowler and Sibley for Defen-
dant.
( Charles p. Outman Is. Elthu Andret0
This was an action of trespass upon the
/ freehold, and was tried by jury at the last
June Term of the County Court, resulting
in a verdict for the plaintiff. The claim
was for trespasses upon part of lot No.
% in Arlington, The plaintiff showed
I title to, and possession of, the south half
Of said lot except ffteenIa acres off the west
end which had been reserved by the
grantors and introduced evidence tend
ing to show acts Of possession on the flf-
( teen acres reserved, by those from whom
I the plaintiff derived his title But the
Court decided the evidence did not tend
70 prove title in the plaintiff by posses
. sion, and declined to submit it to the Jury.
The trespasses complained of were near
where the fifteen acre piece aud the plain
/ til land meet, and the main question
was as TO the location Of the line between
them. The plaintiff offered the deposition
Of one Henry Corey which was objected
to boy the defendant, but admitted by the
Court. Upon taking the deposition the
justice certified the cause Of taking it to
be that the dcpoueut by reason of age
and inhrmitY was unsuitable" to attend
Court. At}er the deposition was used
upon a former trial, the justice took the
same without the knowledge Of the de-
ionaant. aud amended the certificate so as
10 make the word unsuitable" read
"unable." Tho admissibilIty Of this dc.
position is one Of the questions presen-
ted 20 thc >upreme Court The case is
with thc Court for future decision. Mi
80 -.-A AEL.E..- ~ IlntrtLn-. I.nrlrnr t.r.