Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1874-02-16

of spring needle to be used in a knit
ting machine though. in fact. the pre- /
tended invention was-that of one Charles |
House, brother Of Timothy ]. that the t
two Houses and the DIT. entered into a
conspiracy to swindle the rlf.. by get
ting Plff. to buy the needle. which Plff. |
claimed was worthless and which was
never patented. That to do this more
effectualiy, Hodsden pretended to buy
the invention of Timothy ]. House, with
the Plff. for which they were to give
$1,000, and that Plff. did give his note
for one half of that amount that sGbse-
quently to this the Plff. was led by
threats and inducements made and helu
out by Charles House. acting in concert
with the DIT. to buy Dts interest in
| the pretended invention, and that he
gave $1,000 therefor, or for DTS half.
/ DIT claimed that he was bona tIde
purchaser of one half of Houses inven-
ton that there WAS he collision nor
fraud whatever on his part: that in fact
he was led into the purchase wholly by
Plff7s representation and that he was the
dupe of Plf. if any one was duped by
the transaction that becoming sick of
his trade he informed Plf. of his inten-
ton to sell whenever he had an 6pportu-
nifty to do SO. and that thereupon the
Plff. bought out his half of the needle to
keep any one else from doing SO. DIT.
also introduced experts to prove that the
needle had an actual commercial value.
and that it only required to be put into
use to be valuable thing. The experts
evidence was much after the usual course
of that kind of evidence. the witnesses
evidently feeling bound to do the best
they could for the party calling and pay
ing them. The court charged the jury
that if the DIT made fraudulent repre-
sensations in regard to facts that were
of the material substance of the trade on
which the Plff relied. in whole or in
part. and by which he was led into the
trade, and that if the needle had III
commercial value-then in this form oil
action, the Plf. would be entitled to re
! cover. But that if there was not total
failure of consideration, then in this
form of action, the Plff would not be
. | entitled to recover. The counsel on both
: sides made a good fight. and the cast
was well tried. Verdict for the plff "
; D. Crane and Edwards & Dickerman
Atty's for Plf. r. C. Benton. H. II
Powers, H. c. Wilson. John Young. A
! J. Shurtluff and J. I. Allen, Atty.'s 70
f the DIT. The general impression of taos
. who heard the case tried seems to b
that tie jury brought in righteous yer
p dict
o The case of Owen NARROW vs. Patricl
, Burns. Jr. came on for trial in the al
ternooD Of the 18th inst Trial by jury
Plea the Genl issue. This was an az
ton of case to recover the value of
horse which Plf. exchanged with If
for a horse then in DTS possession an
which it was claimed he represented
n belong to him, but which turned out t
10 be the property Of DTS father. an
ID which was taken from PIff in suit {
re replevin in favor of DIT father, an
!; was eventually adjudged. to be his prof
at erty, after jury trial in the Ghittende
ne County Court. The Piff. also elaine
er to recover his expenses in defending Il
r. rcplevin suit. DIT. claimed that the
r. was no fraud on his part that Phi
~ knew or had good reason TO know tn;
Ii, the horse he sold Plf belonged to h
$ father that the horse Plf. put off upo
the Diff. in said trade was unsound, al
.e, that at time of trade, Plf representa-
Iv said horse TO be sound, when he kne
To that he had the heayes. DIT. elaine
al also that he offered to rescind the tra'
al when he found that the horse he pu
he chased was unsound but the cou
le. found that the offer was not made in d
:. season. The court instructed the iu
N. that if they found that DIT perpetrat
MS fraud on Plff by selling him hor
it which he represented to belong to hi
are when in fact be was not the owner thel
If Of, then be would be liable for the val
,ut of the horse he obtained of Plff. if the
ice was no fraud on the part of Plf,
es- that if they found that the Plff sold
oa- horse for sound horse when in fact
nm was unsound, either warranting it
FRA making fraudulent representations abe
ill 1t, then be would be entitled to recos
rlv the difference between the value of
=, horse as he represented it to be and t
value Of the same as it was with its |
soundness. And further. that if he
reasonable cause to believe that be COZ
T. successfully defend the replevin 81
On there Piff. would be entitled also TO
cover his expenses in that suit. Ferd
: of for DIT. to recover his costs. Powers
fter Gleed Atty. for Plf. Grout & Bald'
and Henry Ballard Atty.'s for DIT.
February 18th, the criminal ca
State VS.. George Hatch was tried. 7
a." was an information fled by the Stat
Atty. charging the respondent with