Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1872-02-19
ORLEANS COUNTY COURT.

Thursday, Feb. 8.-Octavia Gardner
VS. Chas H. Reed. This was breach
of promise suit. Trial by jury. The
plff. claimed that in the Fall of 1867
she became acquainted with the deft.
that some time during the year, the
def. made her an offer Of marriage which
she accepted, and that this engagement
continued until the summer of 1869,
when the deft. married another woman
The def. denied ever promising to mar
ry the plff He admitted that he had
paid her very close attentions, calling
upon her very often, one witness setting
it at two hundred times, and that he of
ten prolonged his visits to the early hour
Of morning. Yet he swore that in these
long visits he nor the plf. never talked
about love, marriage, or anything but
the topics of conversation usually en-
ployed by casual caller upon a young
lady. Some of the deft's. witnesses act
ed like drunken men upon the witness
stand This being novel suit for this
county, the court room was crowded.
The jury after being out few minutes
returned verdict for the plff to recover
$52O.68. R. G. Benton Geo Waterman,
W. W. Eaton for plff. Allen and H. H.
Powers for deft.
Friday and Saturday, Feb. and 10.
R. lite VS.. H. Collins & Tr.-An &C
ton on note Plea general issue, stat
ute, limitation and notice of special mat
ter. Tried by jury. The note was da-
ted Nov. l, 1853, and for the sum of
500, payable in two years from date.
The plff. claimed that by an Endorsement
made by the deft to d. ?. WalwoEth
as agent the note was taken out of the
statute of limitations. Verdict for plff
for S236.14 and costs. W. W. Circuit,
and Josiah Circuit for plff.; Allen, Ed
wards and Dickerman for deft
Monday and Tuesday.-Daniels VS..
town of lrasburgh. This was an..action
of general assumpsit. Plea general is.
sue and trial by jury. The plff sought
to recover for building bridge across
Black river near the saw-mill of Z. P
Cotton which he contracted to build with
two of the selectmen in the Fall of 1870
The plf. claimed that he had performed
the contract on his part except such mod
ifcations as were made by the consen
and approval Of the selectmen and tha
they were present more or less during
the time he was building the bridge ant
gave directions from time to time in re
gard to the workmanship and the quail
ty of lumber used in the structure Anc
that the selectmen by using the bridg
and allowing the public to do the sam,
had accepted Of the bridge. The def
claimed that there were material varia
tions from the original contract which
were made by the plff. without thei
knowledge or consent and that consider
able timber used by the plf. did not cor
respond in size to that of the mode
bridge. That the workmanship was i'm
properly executed and very poor at best
and that no words or acts of things coult
be considered an acceptance. Verde
for deft. to recover his costs. L. S. {
L. H. Thompson and Powers for plff
Edwards & Dickerman, w. W. Grout
George Waterman, w. D. Tyler for def
Wednesday.-Greenwood VS.. Smith
This was an action Of assumpsit. PIE
general issue, trial by jury. The plf
sought to recover for a wagon valued a
500 which he had turned out to the def
as security for debt. The def. wrot
the plff. several dunning letters and q
last advertised the wagon for sale, whic
was redeemed by the plff. who the
claimed that he sold the wagon to til
deft. for 500. The deft. had used tn
wagon once and admitted that he wa
guilty in so doing, but that he had nc
, purchased it. Verdict for deft. G. III.
R. c. Benton for plff. H. H. Power
and Durham for deft. One pannel {
Jurors were dismissed to-day.