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

, Samuel I. Champncy V. Esial
. of Mar, Champney-Mary b. Ste
. vens, Claimant. Judgment of Couu
~ Court aflis ned. Leslie and R0g
ers and Hcbards for administrator
Dickey for claimant.
John Harvey V. james &. Stevens
and Trustee. This was u suit to re
cover purchase none. for Il mowin,
machine sold ut auction. Question
was whether there was "a sullicien
memorandum to satisfy Statute o
Frauds. The auction sale book il
evidence was entitled "John Ilar
vey's Auction Sale Book" and on
the 9th page was entered the NOW
Ing machine, deft's name and price
The Court (BarrctU held this suili
clent to satisfy the Statute. judy
ment OF County court affirmed. Liv.
lngs'one and Clark for plf., MardiIl
and Dickry for def.
Eliplas II. Allen V. Ellis Bliss,
and Ellis Bliss V. Eliphas II. Allen.
These cases, being an appeal from
the County court Orerruling motion
for new trial and petition to Su.
prone court for new trial, on ground
of newly discovered evidence aud
surprise, were dismissed on account
of the death Of Ellis Bliss. Farm.
ham, Dickey & Gambell for Allen,
Ormsby, Clarke and Marin for
Bliss.
Alex. McLane, admir-, V. iona.
johnson. With the court. Dickcy
and Clark for plt., Farnlan,, Leslie
& Rogers for diff.
Joseph Bliss V. Conn. 4 Pass. X.
X. X. Report made recommending
giving facilities for tak ng on and
leaving passengers at "pcrmont
Crossing" With the court. Farm.
ham and Clarke for plf., Redfeld
for def.
W. w. Brock V. Conn. q Pass. X.
X, K. Agreement between parties
and station established ut South
Ncwhury. Clerk, Leslie l. Rogers
for plf.
VIM. p. Garfield y. NJ. VI. Avery.
Motion to dismiss for want of prop.
or service Of writ Held, the writ
was not well served and that prop
er objection was made 10y motion
and plea. Judgment Of County
court affirmed. Farnham for plt.,
Clark and Martin for deit.
Ellis Bliss, admir-, Y. Myron Smith
ct. ais. Death of Bliss suggested
and case continued. Ormsby for
plf., Howard and Hebards for dctt. |
Stephen II. Mann V. Town of
Fairlee. Bounty cvSe.-Court held
this case, under the rule in Blodgett
v. Springfield, decided the week he.
fore in Windsor county. There was
no agreement with the selrctInen.
of County court reversed
and case renlandrd. Clark for plf..
Dickey and Gambell for
deit.
Dennis {. Durham Y. Town of
Bounty case.-With
he court. Clark for plf., Hebards
or delft
n. ). Cutler V. Ira ID. Cutler
This case came up on exceptions to
he ruling 10y the County court
If motion for new trial ON account
If something which occurred in
ury room. The foreman answered
wrong when asked by II jnryman
what the effect of "a certain verdict
would be upon the question of costs
md il was claimed that had the Jury
,nOwn how their verdict would at
ect the costs it wOuld lave been
|ifiercnr. The Court barrett J.)
aid the case was rather Il novel one
$ it related merely as to where I
osts would fall, aud that what was i
lined at in endeavoling to correct /
he alleged mistake was not to give
ne plaintiff more damages, but |
imply to mulct the defendant in a
irger sum. 1t amounted to "A de- 5
land Cor largo punitive damages. ,
here Is no error IN law presented {
. everything the motion, and the
county court exercised its discretion ,
he confident ignorance of the fore. 5
IAN, the stupid reliance OF his fel f,
,ws upon his judgment, aud the re. 4
ut, different from what was in> n
ended, are but the natural incidents a
the present jury system; Judg s
lent of County court affirmed. f. c
). French and Clark for plf., Vince t
'ck and Hea Ia for dett. S
Charles Ii. Whltcomb V. Town of I