Bradford opinion. [volume] (Bradford, Vt.) 1874-1881, 1875-03-20
Supreme C0"rt--- Orange County,

Hon, JAMES BAnRrrr, a,,is,o.,
Hon. HoM.g 4, kooERs, " n';'."
Hon, II, lIeSgY PowERs } ""'"''
The session of court commenced
on Tuesday, March 9th.
The following cases were heard OIL
disposed of in some way:
No, l. Lamoiie Valley R. Il. .
4Nissisqaoi II. II. Co. ct ais. Contin
ued. Brigham Il Waterman fol-
petitioners.
Robert Clinic .. Cyrus W. Scott.
This was an action Of assumpsil
brought to recover for Il balance due
Pm. for cigars sold to Tinkham,
Scott \ Co., 10y Pm, The balance
being SiS2.S0, also for l7700 cigars
loaned by Pm. to Tinkham, Scott
4 Co., their value being $1,000. The
PHI. recovered II verdict for Sl,77O,-
03 and costs. The defendants and
I'm. were doing business in New
York city. The Defence was, that
the cigars for which the Pm. claim
ed to recover bal. of SiS2. so, were
not such as the PIN. was bound 10y
his contract to furnish and that by
reason of that, hat the Deits had
lost customers and that their trade
had been broken up and had suffer,
ell great damage, more than enough
to eXtinguiSh 10y way of rconp.
ment plif.'s debt. That as to the
cigars loand, that PIN, was IA part.
ner and could not recover for these
for that reason in aSSumpsit, also.
shat as these 1900 cigars were
loaned by pIff., as plit. claimed to
be pledged by dcits. to secure defts.
notes giveif to one Thomas for the
purchase of cigar stand in n. Y.
city, to the amount of $1,000 to be
redeemed and returned to plt1.. when
the notes became due and payable,
but defts. neglected to redeem them,
but suffered Thomas to sell them ut
auction. That the cigars sold at the
auction for about $500 and defts.
claims pltf. was not entitled to re-
cover only what they brought at
The jury by there verdict
upon the testimony found that as
the cigars sold, they were what the
called ta, and consequent.
~ no damages had arrison to detts.
That pltf. was not a partner and |
the county court ruled, as to the
cigars loaned, that pltf. was entitl.
ed to recover what the cigars were
worth at the time they were to have
been returned, and the jury found
here value to be S1OO2. The dett.
-ook exceptions to this ruling, and
also upon the ruling of the county
court as to excluding LISTENING Of
erred by defts. OH the trial. The
supreme court held that the testi-
nony was rightfulIy excluded and
hat the basis Of the rule of dam
Iges as laid down by the county
curt was correct, us the cigars
oaned and affixed thejudgement for
tiff. Leslie Il Rogers for pIff. Clark
or dettS.
No. 3. Lucy 4. Spear, by IL. G.
}mrtis, her guardian md ne.rt friend,
. Tomn Of B,uintree. Assumpsit
Dr work and labor. Pleas--the
General issue and statute of limita-
ions. Replication to the second
lea, that the said Curtis commenc-
d suit in his own name as guardian
S aforesaid, for the same cause of
elton, and that said suit failed be-
ause it was brought in the name of
he said Curtis, instead of in the
anne of his ward, and that this
nit was brought within one year
fter the failure of that, and that d
aid cause of action occurred with.
/ six years next before the com I
of chat suit. The court
narged the jury that the commenc, Z
rent Of the former suit arrested the |
inning of the statute, and thar they
light go back six years from the Il
thereof; to which
he defendant excepted. Verdict !,
" the plaintiff. Judgment affirm u
|. Perrin and Clarke for plaintiff
Dwell for defendant. .
No. 4. State q. John @. Carleton. !, q
his was an indictment for man ~
aughter tried in the County Court, :,
lne Term. 1878. The verdict was y
guilty.. The respondent took ex- !; !,
'ptions TO the ruling of the court l.
; the admission of testimony and ~
the charge, and the case was :"
,ssed TO the Supreme Court, en- =
red March Term 1874, and con- ',
nued. At the present term the re. r.
'ondent asked for continuance " "
+ the reason that the original ex- O
ptions were lost, and an amended "
py offered for use instead and he !,
aimed that the amendments were n
vt what they ought to be, and for
G reason that he had not had Suf-
.ient time to examine the tran, D
ript of the reporters minutes of L
Stimony as some of it had been 81
but few days before.
lie court granted the continuance. N
ate's Attorney and Gambell for d
ate. Hebards, Clarke, and Farm te
m for respondent. bl
No. g. Samuel Strict &c Co, q. ST. ii
M G. SdnbOrR. This case was heard D,
year ago and was not then decid- OF
and is still with the court. Clark tr
: plff. Hebards for deft. hi
No. 6. John G. Carleton y. State III
Vermont. This is petition for - -
new trial, and is part of case &c, "a
}. 4, and was continued with it. '"
10 moi itinn is allowed To he amand. 70