Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1875-03-24

/
most innocent theory, had been deceived by him
as TO the time he made the copy. Plaintiffs
counsel claimed on the other hand that second
notice had been made and delivered by plaintiff,
and forgotten, from which the copy had been
made The weight Of the evidence was too much
against plaintiff, and the jury after brief dcliber-
alton, returned verdict for defendant Messrs'
Charles H. Heath aud George NJ Fisk for plain
tiff; Messrs. }. r. 1amson and l.. d, hathaway
(of South lIardwicll for defendant
State ~. John Wibur.-Iho respondent was in
dicted by the grand jury at the last September
term Of the court for an assault and battery upon
Henry L. Stowe, at Cabot, on the 18th Of July,
1874 When the case was called it appeared that
respondent was absent, but his counsel decided 10
try It without him. The principal witness for the
prosecution was stowe, from whose story It seemed
that Wilbur was particular friend Of stoves
wife between whom and her husband divorce
suit il now pending. Stowe lives in Manchester,
n IT,, but has relations in this vicinity and was
then endeavoring to get his boy Of between six
and seven into his own custody On the day Of
the assault he had his son In team with him
when he was met by Wilbur In another team with
a companion, and his child was taken from him
and he was severely beaten. His story ~ 10 the
severity Of his bruises was couobolated by Mr.. J.
T. Tamson and Calvin T. Stowe, his brother
There was no evidence for the respondent and
the case was submitted without argument. result
ing In an immediate verdict Of guilty Mr VIM.
T. Dillingham; states attorney Ion the prosecu-
ton Mr. L. J. Durant for the respondent
State rs Thomas Moriarty, appellant Respon-
dent keeps a grocery ON Main street, near the
Union House in this village, and this case was an
appeal from the decision Of justice conyicting
him Of one "tliiid offence" The complaint
charged him with selling glass OF whisScy on
the 10th " October, 1874 10 G.. =. Wood, Of this
village The government put into the case the
records Of two previous convictions and put Mr.
Wood ON the stand who detailed the manner and
circumstances under which he procured the d luor
Of respondent The witnesses in defence were
respondent himself Kilburn Day, aud Edward
Lawrence, each Of whom claimed TO have been at
Morartys on the morning in question: an saw
Wood there. but saw him purchase no whiskey;
did see him buy ten cents worth Of apples, pay
for them, aud sit down aud eat them The jury
returned a verdict Of mot guilty" Mr VIM. r.
Dillingham; States attorney for prosecution
MIR T. v Randall for respondent
State cs b II. Bascom, appellant. Respondent,
Of the firm Of Bascom Dewey druggists n
this village was convicted before justice Of sell
ing pint of whiskey 10 James Rourk, wheel
wright in the employ Of John W. Clark The COM
plant is set up that the offense WIS committed on
or about the "a Of November, 1874. The govern
ment relied solely on the testimony Of Rourk,
who swore that in the evening Of said day, little
before six, he went into respondents shop and
procured bottle to be flied with whiskey by him
there was no one in the shop but respondent and
an elderly man. Having got the liquor, he re-
turned to his Workshop on Elm street got his
pipe, went then TO Bailey & Parks, and thence TO
Mr. George Shepards fence, where he lay down,
went to sleep WAS arrested, and disclosed on re-
spondent Respondent denisl the allegation, and
swore that he did not see RourlS on the day in
question did not sell any liquor left the store
soon after 1--WE O'Clock and did not return till after
seven, when he went ont again Immediately 10 a
lodge meeting. His testimony as to absence from
the shop. was corrobomted by Abraham +. Mer-
rill, samuel A. Luke and George L. Spear while
Highland Alexander contradicted Rourk, 10y tes-
tfying that on the evening In question he saw him
coming out Of Preston's grocery on Main street,
and putting bottle into his pocket. No argu-
iuents Verdict for respondent Mir ". F. Dill
lngham, states attorney, forprosecution; Messrs
Gleason & Field and J. q. Livingston for respond
ents
Peter r Robichard rs James C. French-De-
PENDANT is the manager Of the Montpelier & Wells
River railroad, and plaintiff was formerly resi-
dent Of Groton, but now Of LennoNvile, ?. q
This was an action the case, declaring defendant
to be indebted for work done and materials fur
nshed and the specification was Us follows:
June 20, 1873, to scattering railroad ties ON the
line Of the Montpelier Il Wells River railroad from
Lake House To the summit, thirteen thousand five
hundred and thirty ties at four cents, S5ll 70
/ Plaintiff evidence tended 10 show that in 1871
/ defendant made a contract with Mr. y. C. Nun
sou to get ont lies for the road ON the east side
and admitted George r. Wswel as partner in
/ the contract Wiswe being one Of Munson's fore
/ men In the winter Of 1873, it was necessary 10
distribute the ties along the line Of the road and
/ Wiswell, at Frenchs request made a contract with
/ Robichard to do the work Wswell claimed that
/ he did this as frenchs agent, not his partner:
| that he was French's partner in getting ont the
/ ties. bat not in distributing them Robichani
/ claimed that he had never been paid anything.
/ Wiswell admitted that an arrangement WAS made
I by which three or four Frcnchmen, at work under
Robichard, were To be paid directly, aud not
through Robichard; and defendant put paper,
drawn up by Wiswe aud given 10 defendant a
month ago, into the case tending To show that all
/ but S24 10 Of the sum claimed by plaintiff had
/ been paid out TO store keepers millers and the
/ men, by Wiswell Defendant claimed that this
was done by Wiswell as Frenchs partner in the
/ entire contract and moved that the case be con-
tinued under the statute, which provides that
when only one partner in a firm is sued, the ease
/ may be continued and the others cited in There
were great many collateral questions in the case
which was ~ mixed mp as any series OF transac-
tions could well be, and was striking example
Of the folly Of doing business upon verbal con
tracts without reducing agreements To writing
1t is probable that the jury gave up maxim. head
or tail ont Of the matter, and the abstract given
here is a very inadequate statement Of the affair
being simply an attempt to give the basis OF the
dispute 1t was in evidence that whoever else
might have paid anything defendant certainly
had not, and the jury, perhaps appreciatins that
returned a verdict for SSH 30 interest and costs
Messrs Leslie and Rogers, of Wells River, and
| v Randall, for plaintiff Messrs. ). G Shurtleli
J. r. Iamson and Charles IL. Heath for defendant
Thomas Reed rs Town of Calais. --This wa,
another action to obtain damages for injuries OF
the highway Plaintiffs notice was as follows
". P. slagtop, AHdrer j. HdiieIi, and William white
ssirrfmds 81 NE torn Qf CALAIS
notify You that claim damage 81 the town Of Calais
for injuries myself and the highway tn
residence Of Franklin udeou on the 9TH Of March, A. D.
isl4 THOMAS REED
Defendant objected u this as insufficient and il
appeared from the proof that Rdeouts home wa
very near two highways which intersected shor
distance east; one the main road between Norti
Montpelier and Moscow, and the other eros
road, GA which the accident is alleged to have oc
Cured. Eaeh noad is about thrty-fve or fort.
rods from the house. though its entrance is iron
the cross road Defendant claimed that this no
tice by the phrase " in the highway near the resi-
dence, etc, did not state the place where witt
sufficient certainty to meet the requirements o
the statute. The court thought that it was
doubtful point, and suggested that the validity O
the notice should be settled before going any fun
Iher with the case. This was agreed to by com
sci; pro .formd verdict for defendant was ren
dered; Judge n. A. Chase was selected to draw
e map Of the locality, with measurements, and III
case was passed up to the August term Of the So
nreme Court Messrs Clarence ii pitlin Charlie