Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1875-10-08
Bellows falls Zines,
Windham County Court

ana the plalntlH nave lne properly III
question or $3.50 and the defendant
have said property. Davenport and
Eddy for plaintiff, j. l.. Martin and E.
L. Waterman for defendant.
9th case, No. ~, Lemuel Smith V.
Benz. Z. Morse, appellant. This was an
action of assumpsit. Plea, general issue
and statute of limitations. The evidence
of the plaintiff tended to show that the
defendant had not paid over, except in
part. that there were some items Of book
accounts that the defendant had collected
money for the plaintiff which the defend
ant had never paid. The defendants ev-
idence tended to show that he acted as an
attorney for plaintiff in collecting said
money, that he paid the plaintiff all the
money collected by him except his own
fees, that he was not indebted to the plain
tiff for any of the items claimed. Yer
dict for plaintiff Damages $1,000. S.
I. Davenport and c. B. Eddy forplf. O.E.
Butterfeld and X. .Haskins for deft.
10th case, No. rs, r. ID. Wood Il Co..
V. Western Aqueduct Association and
Tr. This was an action of assumpsit.
Plea, general issue and tender. The
plaintiffs claimed that in 1873 they were
dealers in iron pipe, that they sold and
delivered to the defendants who were
doing business in Brattleboro, between
five and six thousand feet of iron pipe
for the sum of s2SOO.00 and that the
defendant had not paid for the same,
which sum they claimed with interest.
The evidence of the defendant tended
to show that by their contract with the
plaintiffs they were to have said pipe in
nine feet lengths and the same was to
be delivered soon after the contract was
made. That the pipe they received was
in twelve feet lengths. That it was not
delivered until late in the season. That
the expense of laying pipe of twelve
feet lengths was much greater than that
of nine feet and that it was increased by
reason of the plaintiff delay in forward
ing the same, also that iron pipe decreas-
ed in market value during said delay.
That they had paid into court all that
the plaintiffs were entitled to. The
plaintiffs denied the several allegations
made by defendants. Verdict for plain
tifis. Damages s2593.95. Davenport
u Eddy for plaintiffs, j. M. Tyler and
G. B. Eddy for defendants.
18th case, No. II, Franklin Doolittle
v. Frederick A. Nash. This was an &C.
ton of covenant. Plea, accord and sat
isfaction. The plaintiff claimed that the
defendant contracted to build certain
P ortion of the West River Railroad
and sub-let to him about one mile
of the same in the town of Vernon.
That he employed nearly one hundred |
hands, twenty teams, and procured such |
apparatus as was necessary to perform
his contract. That after he had began |
his work building said road the defend. |
ant notified him that there had been an
injunction served on him, the defendant,
enJoining him from proceeding farther |
in the construction of said road. That
he, the plaintiff, might keep his horses,
men, DC, for that he, the defendant.
would soon thereafter get said injunction
removed. That he did keep said horses
and men ready to proceed with his work
In accordance with the contract as set
forth in his declaration. That the de-
Iendant did not get said injunction re-
moved and that in consequence thereof
he suffered damages. The defendant
claimed that he had settled with the
plaintiff and paid him his damages in
ull and produced receipt to that effect
'igned by defendant. The defendant
claimed that the receipt had been chang
ID since signing. That the payment
made to him did not embrace all his
damages. That there were heavy dam.
lges yet unsatisfed. Verdict for plain
itf. Damages, s4S.S0. Davenport &
eddy for plaintiff. ]. NJ. Tyler and X.
iaskins for defendant.
18th case, No. 50, VIM. T. Wheeler v.
'heldon S. Howard. This was an action
# assumpsit. Plea, general issue. The
evidence of the plaintiff tended to show
hat in the spring of 1873 he bought out
he defendants business in butchering ,
nd peddling meat in Jamaica and ad-
'ining towns. That the defendant
greed not to kill and peddle meat in
aid Jamaica and vicinity thereafter.
hat in the fall of the same year the de-
'ndant resumed the business of butch }
ring. That he killed and peddled out
NO beef creatures before the bringing of ,
MS suit and he, the plaintiff, thereby :
Uttered damages to the amount of fifty
ollars. The defendants evidence tend.
to show that when he sold out said
usiness, he reserved the privilege of
illing the cattle that he might wish to
ock his pasture with. That he did kin D
nd peddle two beeves that he bought in
ne spring to stock, in part, his pasture '