Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1873-09-24
Washington County Court.
Hon. AsAHEL PEcE, Presiding Judgc.
Hon. JANIS II HOLDEN, 1..;,,.u, t..,..
Hon. WV. b. ORcurr, HS''''"'" '"'y'''

Hon. JANIS II. HOLDEN, I ...,.,-., H..
Hon. WM b. ORcurr, HS''''''" '"'y'''
LUTHER NEwcoNn, ESQ, CLERK.
WV. p. DuLiNGnAM, ESQ, Star's Arr.
HoRAcE w LYroRD, ESQ, Sheriff.
A. T. SeioaH 4 Co. rs. J. W. Ellis 4 Co.
This was an action in assumpsit brought by
the famous wholesale firm in New York, against
Messrs. Ellis & Co., of Montpelier, to recover
the sum Of $3.50 and interest, the price Of
a roll Of tapestry carpeting, which was bought
in the spring of 1870 by Henry NJ. Foster,
then member Of the firm, and buying goods
for them in New York The defence was. that
the carpet was bought by Foster for his own
use, never came into the possession Of the firm.
and that in buying 1t Foster went beyond the
authority given to him by the firm. The
defendants also made the point that carpets did
not come properly within the scope Of the dry
goods trade-were not dry goods in fact, and
that Stewart Co., knowing this, as they must.
were not warranted in selling Foster carpet
on the credto the firm. In making out their
prima fdcie case the plaintiffs relied upon tho
dispositions Of Messrs. Buck and Libby, Of their
| firm, who deposod to the effect that the carpet
was sold and charged to the arm, and there
was no iutimation made 10 them that il
should not be. To contradict this testimony
the defence put into the case the deposition
| OF Foster, who swore that at the time Of tho
purchase he notified Mr. Buck, the salesman,
that the carpet was for his private use. The
deits., j. W Ellis and Louis z. Gleason, then
went upon the stand and swure 10 the circuu
stances attending the learning Of the purchase
OF the carpet by them, which was not til after
Foster had left the firm and the State, in August,
1870. They then entered into negotiations
with Stewart & Co., with view to an amicable
settlement, which should not involve loss on
either side, as the carpet was then in Fosters
house, and could easily be repossessed by Stewart
&Co. However, the plaintiffs concluded tolook
to Ellis Co. for their pay, and hence the suit
The defendants themselves and Mr.. J. V. Bah
cock and Fred T. Smith testified that carpets
were not properlya part Of the dry goods trade
and here the defence rested. In robuttal the
| plaintiffs put on the stand several well known
gentlemen Of this town in impeachment of
| Fosters reputation since his flight. for
truth and yeracity, in order to destroy
the force Of his deposition. They also put
on Mr.. Carlton to show that carpets are
often sold in dry goods stores The Court
charged the jury that if they believed Foster
statement in his deposition, the plaintiff could
MOREOVER; butt they did not, he could unless
they found that plaintiff was bound 10 know
that carpets were not a description of mer-
chandise that Ellis & Co. traded in, and there
fore that Foster was going beyond his authority
as an agent 10 buying IT, The jury, after
discussion Of about seven hours, found for the
plaintiff So 30. lleaton Heath for plaintiffs:
Gleason and Randall for defendant
( Ro5erf HargiH u.s. Chas. C. Dunsioc. The
plaintiff in interest in this suit, though not
in name, was S B. Rockwell. a money.lender
in Middlebury, who purchased twelve patent
right notes in $50, one of which is the
cause Of this suit. It Is alleged that the note
was given by defendant 10 one j I, Newcomb
who was one Of the swindlers that Aeeced the
farmers Of this State so badly. BIS selling worth.
less patent rights, a few years ago. Defend
ant denies the signature. and also the epdors.
ment Of Newcomb This course put plaintiff
upon his mettle to prove defendant. hapd.wri-
ting, and as it seems probable from the appear
anco Of Dunsheo, that he hasn't signed his
name half dozen times in his life, the
effort to identify his handwriting was not pro-
ductiye Of great results. ltturned out that
reception which pantiarelied, was not signed
By defendant in fact, but by man named
Eastman, whom he had authorised to do the bust
plaintiff could get. was an affidavit Of con-
tinuance purporting to have been signed
and sworn to by defendant This defendant
denied at first, but afterwards acknowl-
edged that he might have signed The
only personal proof Of this signature was the
testimony Of a man named Barnard, Of Bristol,
the residence Of defendant, who said that he
had seen Dunshee write his name seven or
eight years ago, and the statement Of Rockwell
that DIT once, during conversation, had ad-
mitted signing the note, Plaintiffs progress had
been difficult up to this point but their next
step was fatal. As defendant had denied New
combs Endorsement Of the note, plaintiff Of
iered his deposition in proof of that point
The admission of the depositiou was Objected