Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1874-05-01
Minlhnm ConntK Court.

Bratt!eboro, in the evening; that the horse
bad been trained to follow its master, ard
that it had been the custom Of the plaintiff
10 allow this horse TO pass through the
streets with, ut any attendant At the time
VIXEN the accident occurred, the plaintiffs
employee was riding one Of the plaintiffs
horses to his stable aud leading another,
while the one in question was following
the others few rods in the rear, as was lis
custom 10 do. When the horses were lit
tie west of Il. r. Haynes's store. John II.
Frost run into the unattended horse with
carriage, and injured it SO badly that ii died
from the effects of the injury then receiv-
cd. Tue evidence on the part OF the de-
fend INT tended To show that Mr.. Frost was
driving through Elliot street ut the rate If
| about six miles All hour tn t he was dIiv-
| ing upun the right side Of the road, when
| he suddenly came in contact with the horse
of the plaintif; that he did not see the
horse until the moment of the collision.
The plaintiffs evidence contradcted the
defendants testimony in regard 10 the rate
Of speed be was driving and as TO which
| side of the road he was at the time OF the
accident. The question of negligence, or
whether the defendant was in the exercise
of ordinary care. OF such care rs prudent
men under the same circumstances would
ordinarily exercise, was submitted to the
jury. The question was also submitted TO
the Jury whether the plaintiff was guilty
OF negligence in allowing the horse TO pass
through the streets unattended, under the
circumstances rs disclosed by the evidence,
IL
injury tuthe hots. occurred by reason Of any
want OF care or negligence on the part eli
the plaintiff, then he would not be entitled
to recover. No evidence was INTRODUCED
by inc defendant in regard to the value Of
the horse. Verdict for plaintiff, S27l.
Hcnrg ". Walker rs. Nyirdnus Clark
This was au action Of assumpst. 1t APP
peircd tina; defendant, with his wife, went
to the saloon of the plaintiff for the pur-
pose OF having their pictures taken as they
were upon their wedding day. The par
ties wore their wedding apparel Al desir
Ell full lenglh portraits. The pictures were
taken a desired, and were exhibited 10 the
jury during the progress of the trial. Up
ON their completion the defendant refused
to take and pay for the same, upon the
ground that the work was not well eXecut-
ed that the pictures but family resempled
the PARTIES that the bridal veil did not full
~ show IL the picture and the wedding
gloves were not distinctly represented, ana
that The coloring was imperfect. The plain
tins evidence showed that the pictures
were taken in the position that the parties
arranged themselves, aud that the tin-type
nom which The pictures were painted was
SAT-, iactory when taken. Verdict for
plaintiff, SIG 81.
Ralph T.. HoNOrd rs. y. y. CcHtrdi II. n.
CO.-This was al action on the case to ie-
cover Tor quantity Of apples shipped from
Batavia, y. y, and consigned to parties in
Boston. The evidence tended TO show that
200 bar, els of apples were put into a car at
Batavia in February, 1873; that 4 quantity
of haY was put into the car to guard against
tue effects Of the cold weather; that all Of
the apples placed in t6c car never reached
their destination; that the ear had been
opened, large portion Of the h'y removed
from the car, aud p ,riiUn of the apples,
nd thai those that reached the cuusi9nces
in Boston were badly lIozen, - that they
became OF little value t" the plaiuin. YER
diet for pllintin, SjOi.
| .IayoH q. Ho,rayd As. Eu1.,,, r. Iop-
ard ct aL-TAi. vas an action of u.samp.it
to recover tEe balance due upon note.
The PLAINTIFFS evidence tended TO show
that he held uoie against the defendants
Tor $1,000; that there we've endorsements
| upon the note - the amount ri abuut Sl60;
aud thai The nu,e was secured 10y mortgage;
that In 1867 the plainlin desired 10 raise
some money, aud made uu arrangement
| with the defendants, The sons Of the plain
| lin, by which he discharged his mortgage
on the defendants farm So that they OBJ
tanned $500 at The saving, bank on sale prop
erty and paid To The pluinuif; that a con-
tract Was made by the plaintiff with his
sou, Eugene K 4, To keep one of The plain
| tiil's sons for the period of six years for the
! sum Of 500 per year; lhal Inc note was
| put iuto tho hands OF ihiId party for safe
keeping, aud afterwards, by permission of
the plaintiff, Eugene Il. took said note for
safe keeping. The defendant kept the boy
according to contract, but claimed and in
| lroducod e\ dcnce 10 show that the plaintiff,
instead OF entrusing the note 10 him for
safe keeping, gave il TO him on the ground
that Ee had had hard time, aud that he
TO Ok and destroyed the note. Some adj
missions of The pldinllr 10 this effect were
shown. The plaintiff testified that he was
seVeny-seNen years DID, amt that tbs was
AL The properly he had aud That he never
gave lhS mole TO Eugene Inc balance due
upon The note, with Interest, amounted to
S2oOO, for which sum the jury rendered
verdict
NAME H. S"'"h rs. .. II. W"coT. This
action was brought aSains; the defendant