Essex County herald. [volume] (Guildhall, Vt.) 1873-1964, 1873-02-22
Court Record,
Coos County--Northern judicial District.
ColebrOok, ~. II.

'NNn1= NVAhAa -~-HNAAhNNh 1AAGAdA 1A1AAANsH
Colebrook, y. II.
John GdlhsrcOle vs.. Stephen ".
Gilman. In this action the plaintiff
claimed that the defendant had
damned a small brook and caused the
water to rise in such way as to over
flow the plaintiffs muck bed. The
def. claimed that the brook was really
an artificial channel, and that he had
a right to raise the alter as high as
it was before the channel was made.
Verdict for def. Dudley and Ray &
Drew for plif. Bingham and Shurt-
LEFT d Aldrich for def.
Tb0'adS Gleason VS.. James G. Dc ID.
4. Flanders. Assumpsit for a GER
tain number Of hop roots which the
plaintiff sold the defendants in 1868.
The defendants claimed that they
were to pay for only those roots that
grew, and that about one half of them
failed to come. They also claimed a
setof of $50 for certain hay sold bv
them to the plH. Verdict for plff,
$685.. Shurtleff & Aldrich and
Ray & Dew for piffs. Dudley and
Bingham for defts.
Israel W. Tyler VS.. Hiram D. Flun-
ders, ErdStuS HiJbard and Otis
Young. This was an action brought
by the plaintiff against the defendants
as Selectmen of Stewartstown. The
first count alleged that the Selectmen
fraudulently and maliciously raised
the invoice Of said plaintiffs farm the
sum of 5000, and taxed the plff. fol
one horse which he did not own. The
second count was trover for one horse
taken and sold by the Collector fol-
the plf.'s taxes. The plaintiff put
in a large amount Of evidence in re
gard to the value and appraisal o
different farms in town to show The
fraud and malice of the Selectmen
and also claimed that the horse il
question belonged to one LETTERS, ;
minor, who was at work for him
The plT. also claimed that Erastu'
Hubbard was an alien, and that hi
father was born il Canada. Their,
was conflicting testimony, and thu
court submitted to the jury two ques
tions: 1st, "Were the SeIectmen &C
tuated by fraud or malice in apprais
ing the plf.'s proporty?" ID, eva
Erastus Hubbard, at the time this as
sessment was made, a citizen Of TIL
United States?" The first OF tnes
questions the jury answered in th
negative, and upon the other the
failed to agree. Dudley and Ray
Drew for Gefts. Aldrich & Shuttle
and Bingham for pllf.
JeSoph ". Copper ct al. VS.. Jane
Z. Atherton. Assumpsit for $20C
which one Of the plaintiffs, Joseph W
Cooper, claimed to have let the def
have with which to Buy lambs in tn
summer Of 1860, and which the def
claimed never to have received. !
seems that J. W. Cooper, j. G. MAJ
shall and G.. L. Tibbetts, were i
company in the summer Of 1859, buy
ing cattle and sheep, and that Ma
shall employed Anterior to buy lamt
for the firm, furnishing money frol
time to time, and sometimes sendin
him to Cooper for it; and Coopt
+ claimed that on the Dist day Of Al
I gust, 1869, he let the deft. have $40
I under this arrangement. The def
~ says he never had the $500, and shov
9 ed what money he had and how
4 disposed Of it Oh that day 1t was
very close case, and had been trie
once before, resulting in u disagree
ment Of the jury. Verdict for phi
h $237. Dudley and RAY & Drew t'
plf. Aldrich and Hartshorn for def