National opinion. [volume] (Bradford, Vt.) 1865-1874, 1871-03-24

court WAS OF an accident resulting
from a similar combination. II the
jury was mislcd. it was ,athcr from
want OF capacity on their part than
error IN the charge. Judgment OF
the county court affirmed. Mardln
and Ilebards forplf., Farnham, Dick
ey q Gambell for delft.
X. NJ. Bill V. DcnisOn DcnsmUrc.
Exceptions withdrawn. White and
Livingston for pie, Heath and X. &
ID. aud II.ba,ls for def.
d. w. Batcheldcr, admir-. v. Asa
Low. This was, perhaps, the most
important case decided. Plaintiff
sued to recover amount of note
from defendant. Defendant plead
Ell IN bar his discharge under the
Bankrupt Law of 1861. Plaintiff
set up fraud in procuring said dis.
charge. aud the County court held
the discharge could he impcaclied
for fraud only in the District court,
IN provided in the act Of 1867.
The Court wheeler J.) said the
case has been by both sides argued
as one of voluntary bankruptcy. In
the adjudication two things are adj
judged, the appropriation of the
h"nkrupt's assets to the paymen of
his debts, and his release from them
hereafter. The bankrupt wishes the
second. and therefore submits to the
former All creditors have RIGHT
to notice and their day ia court.-
The pail',i IL alleges Iad.iulrnt
omission. an; ita, il, had mo- ru.!cc.
lie s"u'd b" allowed t" rove fraud
in thu discharge in whatever court
he discharge is pleaded as IA bar to
his right 10 recover, unless this is
forbidden 10y special cnactment.-
The prov i>iOnS of the act of 1867.
as taking away this common
law right are not express and do
not prevent the State cOuI, from ex.
into fraud in the discharge
which is offered as bar thrrein.-
Fraud. if pleaded in the District
c, mt. would invalidate the Whole
in bankruptcy here ii
lnvdIldatcs it onl Y rs to the plaintiff
setting it up. Judgment reversed
and case rrhlanded. D.ckey, Gam
bell aud Clark for plf, Farnham
md Hebard for diff.
BOSWELL q. Curtis, guardian, V.
Town of Braintree. Plaintiff S writ
summoned defendant to answer to
Roswell &. Curtis, guardian of Lu-
" "A. Spear and the County court
leld it should have summoned de.
rndant TO answer to "Lucy A. Spear
y her guardian, Roswell G. Curtis.r
\ hicll the same the Supreme court
lid not attempt to deny, and affirm
he Judgment. Perrin and Heath
or plt., Wilson and McIVaiu for
left.
Alden 5. Slack V. Town of Crafts
'ury. Bounty case turning on the
of the vote OF the town.
he Count Barrett }. held the vote
pnirrred ii specific authority, and
nat under it but three men before
Office OF plant II 5 credit TO their
'wn, and their authority was ex-
in the premises. Plaintiff :
mt have his bounty. Judgment ,
County court affirmed. Clqrke d
n plf., Hendee and Martin for delft. i
Ill. b. Flanders V. Chester NJ. i
lncklnS. DickrN and Gambell for t
IT,. Mardln for dcit. Settled. q
Ahl'a GriSwoid Y. Elijah &. Oar /,
ne and Edmund Darling It. ais. .
in>'c's. on"-'!rn was whether
Du,IaL Snna,;i be hrt.i AS
rils;rp The ID, O.l4!iiIsSiu,,r. John
!. knweli, appni u, Il, found that if
MI Edmund were permitted to in. ,,
odtlcc parol evidence as to the civ II
< aud conditions of a certain note t.
ferred 10 in Il deed from Elijah &. NJ
'IIins to said Edmund, (said note 81
ing referred to as given by said {"
'imnnd 10 Elijah c., he was not r. r.
To he held; but that if said evi u
nee WAS inadmiSSiblc he was in. r
'bted to Elijah G. in the sum of z
700 The Commissioner held the
'ideuce iuadmiSSible, and the court
stained the position. The Su.
emc court, wheeler j. said the 4,
ed in question has the same effect !
mortgage back. and in so far N
security is concerned, is conclu.
le. But it does not contain the .
htract, and is not conclusive "a to
2 debt. The evidence was admis u
BILE. Judgment reversed and h,
ustee discharged. Perrin for plf. >,
,lIan for TrirStn f.np .laft