Lamoille newsdealer. [volume] (Hyde Park, Vt.) 1860-1877, 1872-06-05

Inc case on tflsl Hheh our paper ven
o. TO press last week. Cobleigh =. Baker
was concluded on Wednesday. Tho de-
:. PENDANT purchased lot Of land lying cas-
\. Of the defendants in 1886. aud in few
D. years thereafter buili line fence. which
'e IN course oftime the defendant claimed
n was not on the line, aud the line was run
! unto by a surveyor aud the fence moved
out what both parties agreed to be the
e true line; but the defendant again dis
= puied the line, and during the years go
e and 20. took down the fence. either a
q small PORTION or nearly all Of it several
times. which the plaintiff alleged was of
great annoyance to him. The plaintiff claim.
. ed TO own the land in dispute by virtu Of
its being the original line and also by fifteen
years continuous possession. The testi-
mOny Of the plaintiff was mostly from sur
yeyors who had made recent SURVEYS
from "corners" near the south line Of the
town, which tended 10 establish his claim.
The plaintiff introduced the testimony of
several aged people, some of whom had
formerly owned the land in dispute, who
testified as to where the line had always
heretofore been treated to be, and also
the survey Of line from what was sup
posed to be the known ''corner" north off
the lot, to one on the south. The iuy
returned a verdict on Thursday morning,
that the plaintiff recover the sun of $50.
and costs, and special verdict that the
fence in question is on the original lot
line.
A motion TO set aside the verdict on the
ground of misconduct of the jury, was
over-ruled by the Court.
The next case tried by jury was that
OF Darius II. Bedel .. Geo. b. Wrisley.
an action of trespass for taking a horse
The defence was that the horse was the
property OF the defendant, he having paid :
for the same by another horse he had re- =
ceived of the plaintiff in a mill trade. ;
which plaintiff denied. Verdict for de- G
PENDANT to recover his costs. =. X. +
Gleed for plff; Wilkins, Brigham & Wa. {
terman for def't.
The trial of the case, Amasa b. Hill
.. Chas. V. Wilkins was commenced Fri. C
day afternoon, which was also an action a
Of trespass of for converting prop. b
erty on which det't had given a bill Il
Of sale. 1t appeared that the defendant al
purchased farm of plaintiff in 1869, o,
md considerable personal property there la
On agreeing to pay $4,000, and paid NJ
$500. down, niviug bill of sale of the d,
personal property to secure the payment N
# the two first notes. The defendant
allied to meet the payments and was fire. 10
losed. A decree was granted. which to
'eoame absolute last fall. The defense ne
the action was that the defendant was hi
ot aware that he had given bill of sale TO
nd that the decree of foreclosure having pa
ecome absolute, the notes we're paid. fu
he Court ruled that if the value of the BIZ
roperty received by the orator did not no
mount to the sum named in the decree.
hen the plaintiff could recover the value 'nI
the property at the time OF the con- OF
ersion. Verdict for plaintiff. SI75, and MOI
osts. M. A. Bingham, Powers d Gleed, D;
" plff; Wilkins for defendant. "
This concluded the jury trials on the OIL
Ocket, but the Grand Jury having found up
bill of Indictment against Lenora Davis tina
n the crime of adultery, the respondent mr.,
'ked counsel and a trial. Geo. i. Wa.
rman was assigned by the Court as a"'
'unsel, and the trial commenced on Sat. Tn
day. The indictment alleges the crime the
have been committed at CAMBRIDGE IN
e 2lst of May, with one Joseph Labar-
who has been arrested ard is in Jail. lea
.lr. Waterman made motion to ouash 49,,
e Indictment on the ground of a misno-
en-, as the respondents name was not lh'
enora Davis as set forth in the indict. me
emit, but Lenora Selma Davis, and in. int,
Oduced authorities sustaining his motion. ao
he Court overruled the motion. to which SOS
ceptlons were taken. The respondent oh
rs then brought into court, arraipped nul
ID plead mot guilty" Several chal. on
nges to the jury panel were made by the %
fence and the trial commenced. which
cuped the attention of the court during NC
e day, The jury were unable to agree of i
lndlng nine for conviction and three for Uni
quittaI, SO the respondent was remain had
d to jail AS the case is to be tried at
future term, we make no further com. 'o''
'nts, States Atty. Bingham, Heath mu'
: State Geo. l.. Waterman, r. Parker wit
r respondent som
On Monday the time of the Court was our
cupled In cleaning up the docket, and pre-
al of court and divorce eases A. tho thrt
IT term in the case John Brush D. b. s latl
llnwcod, defendant Ellinwood was de.
ited. AT this term motion was made 7
bring the case forward, on the ground last
misunderstanding between defendant
his counsel. The Court sustained the ''op
'tion, and ordered defendant to nav the whi
HANGED costs occasioned by the default erat
restoration OF the case, Plaintiff ex- mitt
oted.