Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1874-09-25
windham County Court.
We avail ourselves of the court re-
port for the Brattleboro Record, for the


the Company and Crowel was appointed agent
to negotiate a lease Of tract of land in the oil
region of Canada, sink well and manage the
affairs of the company AZ the we'll. Oil was
struck in July of that year, the well worked sue.
cessfully and the stock of the Company, went up
TO a high figure,
The p}ffs, evidence tended to show that while
the oil flow was al its height, the Def wrote aud
telegraphed to him from Canada directing him to
buy up stock to "a certain amount, and said the
same to him at one time upon visit 10 Putney /;
that he understood it was request to him to
purchase stock for the Deft,, and he accordingly
purchased some twenty shares which he subse.
quently requested the Def, to take and pay for,
which the latter declined to do.
The Det's, evidence tended to show that said
letters and kilograms generally in the nature
of official reports TO the Plff., as President which
he had been directed to make, and when other
wise they were merely adYices TO Davis rs to
what the latter could safely do in the matter Of
investments for himself that Davis bought said
stock in his own name and never rendered it TO
Deft, or made known that he had bought it for
him till the summer Of 1872, just before this suit
was brought 1t appeared that in few weeks
after the well commenced working, oil fell in the
Market so that the well which was a good one,
did not pay for working, and said stock became
and was always after, yalueless Verdict for Pin.
for 1881.
Jacob Chase We. School District No Is in vii,
mington,-This was an action of assumpsit to re-
cover back school tax Of $3.50, assessed on the
grand list of 1871. which the Plff paid to the
collector of said district on the twenysecond day
of October, 1872.
The Plff claimed and his evidence tended to
show that in 1866, he gave all his property, both
real and personal situated in the town of VIII.
mington. to his two children. That he then
owned about 100 acres Of pasture land in the
town of Nottingham, and a farm in Halifax.
That in 1870, he sold the farm in Halifax, and
with part of the proceeds of said sale, he pur-
chased a house in Nottingham, and the balance
thereof he gave to his said children. That on the
first day of April 1871, he had no property ex.
cept his real estate in Nottingham and had not
resided in Wilmington during the last eight years,
and that for the last three years and over his res
idence had been at Nottingham in the family of
one Sumner Chase. That he had not been in
Wilmington during the last eight years. except to
visit his daughter who lived on the farm formerly
owned by him.
The Deft claimed and its evidence tended to
show that the Plf, had been a resident of the
town Of Wilmington, in said School District for
more than forty years last past, and as such, was
assessed in the grand list in said district on the
LIST day of April, 1871, in the sum of 81 600 upon
which list said tax of $3.50 was assessed and
collected. That the Plff. was worth from twenty
1878, the Plff. went to Bennington and remained
there during that year for the purpose of eyading
taxation in Wilmington. That Plff returned TO
Wilmington in 1869, and remained there until
the last day of March, 1870 when he again went
to Bennington but returned to Wilmington in the
month of April, and there remained until the last
day of March 1871, when he went TO Nottingham,
and gave in his list of poll and 500 in April.
to the listers in Nottingham, That the listers Of
Nottingham investigated his case and concluded
that he was not liable to be assessed in Whiting.
ham, but was liable TO be assessed in Wilmington.
and refused TO take his list, That said Plff re-
turned 10 Wilmington about the month of NAV
1871, and had remained there ever since, except
few weeks during listing time in 1872 and 1873
when he was away in Nottingham, That said
Pltf left Wilmington during listing time solely
for the purpose of avoiding taxation, and that he
was on the farm in Wilmington at all other
times and apparently worked the farm the same
as before the pretended gift in 1866
The Deft. also offered in evidence the record
of a former judgment in case of Jacob Chase
S. NJ. Donelson, suit brought by the Plff. to re
cover back the same $3.50 Of said Donelsou as
collector of said district and insisted that said
Judgment was bar 10 his suit.
The Plff. contended that said suit of Chase
Donelson was decided upon the ground that said
Donelson as such collector had paid said $3.50
over to the District before the commencement of
said suit, and that said Judgment not having been
rendered upon the liability Of the Plff to be so
assessed and taxed, was no bar to this suit.
Verdict for PHI. Sl5l4 Exceptions by Def.
David Leahy VS., /. X. Allen-Assumpsit TO
recover for a quantity of lumber delivered by
Plff, 10 Def. The defence was that there was
an entire contract between the parties, by which
the Plff, was bound to deliver certain quantity
of lumber. for SIP per thousand, and that Plf.
had delivered only portion of it and broken
the contract without cause and was not lawfully
entitled to payment until the contract was fully
performed.
The Plff claimed that he stopped drawing the
lumber because the Def, refused TO pay him but
SIP n thousand, when the contract price was $l3.
The Deft. introduced evidence of repeated adj
mission by Plf. to various persons that the con-
tract price was Sl2 which admissions the Plff.
denied, Verdict for Plf for 1888.
j, d. Whitney vs. First National Bank Of
Brattleboro.-The Plaintiffs evidence tended to
show that in July, 1865, he deposited with S. M.
Waite, Cashier Of said Bank, $4,000 worth ofgov-
eminent bonds for safe keeping in said bank as a
special deposit and took said Cashiers receipt
or the same; that from time to time, as the cou-
pons became due, he called at the Bank, and at
his request said Waite cut them off and paid
him therefor then in June, 1871, it was reported
that there had been a robbery of the Bank, and.
upon calling for his bonds, he was informed that
they had been taken in the robbery; then he sub.
sequenty made demand for said bonds or the
value of them, and was told by the Bank officers
that they did not consider the Bank liable for
them He also offered evidence that bonds were
deposited by other parties in like manner and
were claimed to have been lost in the robbery.
The Defendant offered no evidence, except
that it was a National Bank, organized under
the act of Congress for the purpose of doing
banking business only, and claimed as matter Of
law that the Bank, as a corporation. could not be
held liable for the loss Of special deposit, recev-
ed by its Cashier or Clerks, without the express
direction of its Directors,
The court directed verdict for the Plaintiff
and the case is made up for the Supreme Court,
The next case was William Norris & Son VS.
Charles f. Osgood. Action to recoverthe amount
OF promisory note made by defendant in No
yember sec.
The defendant claimed that he bought of the
plaintiff 1865 worth of butter and paid him there
for S255 in money and gave this note for the bal
ance; that he made known to the plaintiff that he
wanted the butter for table use and to be of a
prime quality; that the plaintiff represented this
butter 10 be Of such quality and that he bought it
on plaintiffs recommendation, without inspection
that the next day he examined few tubs of ii
and found it of poor quality and then sent il 10
market, where he was obliged to sell il for abont
twenty cents pound except eight tubs of il
which he sold for fair price, and that he duly
notified the plaintiff and asked him to take It
back
The plaintiff claimed that the defendent bought
part of the butter for the defendant. and the
rest he had on hand that the defendant saw il all
at plaintiffs store in Windham and examined if
all he pleased and bOuCht il az his ,,r,., IL i