The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1871-02-21


ttss aool. wera s. ha.r 'as' ta h.m. bni 5.
he afeasef part wa. recovered IH q daur &
.zI condition The testimony af tIae Bee
ca8aats tended ga Stow that thc house
% question wa. para af tie factory pro- o.
lerg uhlea. lH E,g- WAS oaReb by
lua 60 vidaa fbs rIalrug was partner.
~oaH sffr tfa partners conveyed AlItts,F
-eal estate bs absolute deed Go >mFthe.
-pagHa & Cooper. firm in tbr giiy Of
Ness Nork. se4neHt'r. s.i Doe Factory /
property wa. attached aBl levied upon 5
av t..e era8Hars of lhe arm m which
tbe plaintiff So. q partner. in 1858, one
william G. ptmAcit ehaiacj thc atie of
bafa -mfthe, >unsue a Cooper and toe
lcsfHe creditors. Tbn F.siHHh knew %
lsse purchase, aud 90 bnt objected go il +.
pIauEeu bcsiiate3 ts buy without tbe
sou.ant of toe plaintiff aud offered him
HH. II Doe would eou-eHt TO ihe puf-
tha.e. give zap possession Of the house.
aud ba friendly. Tue plaintiff agreed TO
li. and tbf money was paid 10 a third par
tv for his use. The plaintiff afterwards
refused TO give up the house. and the de-
fendauts. by pl0uketr. directions, en-
dcayored 80 gain possession oft as above
related The plaintiff introduced tosti-
mony which tended 10 show that he did
not agree 10 give zap possession Of the
house that the $500 was not paid for his
use and that hr had never waived hi,
homestead right tnder the objection
Of the plaintiff the defendants were per-
miled 90 show that they were acting nm
/ der the advice oi counsel. that they be-
Irycd they had q right 10 enter and take
possession Of lhe house and that they had
an understanding with the hired woman
30 give up the possession when the plain
tlG was absent The plaintiff requested
Che court to charge the iury that ii the de-
PENDANTS made entry with strong hand or
with q multitude of people. their entry
wa. unlawful, and the plaintiff should re-
cover. The Court declined so TO charge,
but held that itihc defendants had shown
title IN Plunkett and ana authority from
him TO enter. the defendants were entitled
to a verdict. Verdict for the defendants,
aud exceptions by the plaintiff. With the
Court. Siblcy aud Gardner for Plaintiff;
Hartman and Roberts for Defendants.
Heary H9dge rs. The 1ova al Benz
Hjngt0u,
This was an action on the case 10 re-
cover damages sustained by the plaintiff
TO his horse. wagon and harness, through
the alleged insunicioucy of highway be.
tween The villages of Bennington and
Z Ia
ordinary frcshpt in October, 1869. the
WRlloomsaC River overlooked its banks
and swept along the road in question.
digging ont gullies from one 10 five feet
deep. so that the road was for time wholly
impossible, The road was repaired by
tling in with stones, and covering il
with sand apd gravel, first making a
single track and afterwards widening IL.
At the time of the accident the plaintiff
3 turned aside from the travelled path TO
avoid the ruts, and his nigh fore wheel
cut through the covering ofthe stones and
. settled down to them, causing the plain
tin to quickly rein his horse back again.
In thus turning back, the nigh fore axel
, was broken, throwing of the Wheel and
precipitating the plaintiff TO the ground
His horse broke away from him, and ran
with the remainder Of the Wagon until
= he came up with team going the same
3 way, at Il place where the road was quite
narrow In endeavoring to pass this
team, the horse fell into the ditch and
, was killed. The aXel which gave way
{ was weakened by an old break in it, but
c the plaintiff did not know of this defect
The defendant requested the Court 10
charge the Jury that if the road where the
axle broke was sufficient for the safe pas
. sage Of sound wagon the plaintiff
f could not recover, and that the death OF
z the horse was not such direct conse.
. auence of the insuiliciency of the high.
- way at the point where the wagon wa.
/ broken that the plaintiff could recover
y therefor. The Court declined to charge
as requested, but did charge the Jury that
- the town was bound to keep the road in
sufficient repair with reference 10 such
r. vehicles as were generally used upon such
I roads. and the plaintiff was bound to use
4 reasonable care as TO strength and sound
ness Of his wagon; and that If the flight
y and death of the horse were such conse.
quences a. might reasonably lie expected
q to follow such an accident. the plaintiff
/ would be entitled to recover the damages
! sustained. Verdict for the plaintiff. and
exceptions by the defendant. The iudg.
ment Of the County Court was affirmed
D Opinion by Judge Redield. Sibley fol
/ Plaintiff: Gardner and Roberts for deten.
- dant
] T'oea Of GiaacabV5Y rs. PrOpcHg Hac-
DoaajTS Administrators.
This waya bin in Chanccry. PRAYING the
C0nw 10 cn0iu the defendant from pro-
q scouting suit at law now pending ia the
r County Court TO enforce the collection OF
r Town order given boy the Selccimen OF
Glastonbury 10 said Property Mcdonald,
Il appears that u 1861 Jeremiah Mellon
aid and John ". Mcdonald, two Of the
> Sclcctupu of Glastonbury, one Of them
i the father. and the other the brother, OF
Property Mcdonald. gave said Property
Mcdonald 81 town order for 500. ia
compensation for injuries alleged to have
. been sustained i'm consequence of the in
, sutticiency Of one of the highways in
, said town. There was very little travel
In this road, and by general consent some
poles had been placed across it from fence
10 fence for the convenience OF the neigh
/ boring landowners. II was the usual
practice with foot passengers 10 stOop and
pass through between the poles, but Pro-
uerly Mcdonald claimed to have been
q injured by a fall 30 the ground while
. climbing over them. tie brought O suit
z against the town TO recover damage, ;
and the order iu controversy was given
20 settle lhat suit, whercupOu il was dis
g continued Tic testimony taken by the
4 town ia tho present salt. tended 10 prove
q TINT Property NrD8ualdt- lgll was not
. purely accidental that bee was not injured