Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1875-04-30
Windham County Court.

4
The plaintiffs evidence tended to show
that he is the owner of land adjoining a
natural pond of water that there was
an outlet to said pond, leading through
land of plaintiffs, and to a saw-mill
owned by defendant; that defendant
supplied his mill with power by water
from the pond; that defendant, without
license, entered upon plaintiffs land,
some distance below the outlet of the
pond, and dug channel, and erected
dam, thereby raising the water in the
pond above its ordinary height, and
from which the plaintiffs suffered dam
age. The damage claimed was merely
nominal, the object of the plaintiffs be-
ing to determine the title to the land in
dispute, and whether the defendant had
the right to erect, and keep erected the
dam. The plaintiffs father claimed,
and his evidence tended to show, that
defendant on several occasions, had been
on to other land of plaintiffs, and car
ried away stone and earth to repair the
dam Defendants evidence tended to
show, that he had right to use the wa
ter privilege, and that he had title to
the land, where he erected and repaired
the dam; that plaintiff Elias Prouty
gave him license to get the stone and
earth. Verdict for plaintiffs. Damages
s4.45.. X Haskins and o. E. Butterfeld
for Plf G. N. and G. w. Davenport
for Deft.
Thomas Carey VS.. Thomas Judge
This is an action of trespass for an as
sault and battery. The parties are Irish
man. The defendant has resided in
Brattleboro about twenty-five years, and
is boot and shoe merchant there. Plain
tiff claimed, and his evidence tended to
show, that in December, 1873, about nine
Of the clock in the evening, he in com
pany with friend, one Mcguire, went
into defendants store for the purpose of
purchasing some boots that he asked
Defendant, if he would trust him that
defendant said he would that thereupon
Mcguire, who was somewhat intoxicated
entered into war of words with defend
ant, because he had on former occasion
refused to trust him, Mcguire, for boots
that Mcguire used profane, vulgar and
insulting language to defendant which
greatly exasperated him, that thereupon
defendant seized the boots which plaintiff
was examining and proposed to buy, and
ordered Mcguire and plaintiff to leave
the store; that he, plaintiff, tried to in
duce Mcguire TO leave; that Mcguire
refused to go and that plaintiff remained
only for the purpose of taking care of
Mcguire and to induce him to go away
that defendant left the store and went in
search of policeman but not finding
one soon returned ; that on bis returned
plaintiff and Mcguire left the store and
went into the street when the war of
words between Mcguire and defendant
was renewed, and whereupon defendant
rushed out of his store with boot tree in
his hand, and struck plaintiff with it on
his head, severe blow, knocking him
down and severely injuring him that
the effect of the blow was to disable him
for a long time and that he had not yet
fully recovered
Defendants evidence tended to show
that both Mcguire and plaintiff were in
toxicated; that Mcguire introduced plain
tiff, and informed defendant that plain
tiff wished to buy some boots, and to be
trusted fore them that he, defendant,
told plaintiff he would trust him, and
showed him some boots that Mcguire
then began to abuse him for refusing to
trust him on a former occasion, using
the most vulgor and threatening lang
uage: that he, defendant, told Mcguire,
he would then trust him, if he wanted
boots that Maguiresaid he did not want
them, and continued his threats and ex-
asperating language that defendant be-
came satisfied that neither of the men
wished to purchase boots, but came there
TO provoke quarrel that he ordered
them both to leave the store that both re.
fused, the plaintiff saying he would moi
go till he got ready; that defendant then
went for policeman, but did not sue
coed in finding one; that on his return
Mcguire and plaintiff went out into tn,
street, and defendant stepped out upon
the side walk; that Mcguire and plain
then renewed their abuse and threatened
to fight defendant, upon which defendant
told Mcguire he better 60 home and
whip his wife, as he had frequntly
done that upon this being said, Mcguire
and plaintiffrushed upon him and struck
him that he escaped from them into hi,
store, when one or both of them kicked
the door that defendant took small
stick which he had used to stir the fire
with, and went out and struck one of the
men, he did not then know which one
that what he did, was done in the de.
fence nf hfz raraan and bfa s,o.o 49,