Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1875-04-07
pred instead of si,.rrara.. a plaintiff claimed.

and that the $500 was In part payment q the pur-
chase money and not In consideration Of plaintiffs
giving up the bill OF sale and allowing defendant TO
remain In possession till July $40 that he had been
living under u contract Of purchase all the time,
and not ns tenant, and that the first notice he
had had that plaintiff regarded him a. a tenant
was In June, 1874; that u he was tenant, the
suit was wrongfully brought, for he was entitled
TO six months notice. The court rendered jndg-
ment for plaintiff Of possession, aud TO compute
rents frorn July l. 1874 up 10 date Of the writ at
s25 per month, less what defendant has paid,
Exceptions by defendant Mr. Frank Plumley
Tor plaintiff Mr. Chas. X. Heath for defendant
Almira Royce, by next friend, rs James NJ.
Van Deusen Action Of troyer, in which defend
ant, physician In waitsfeld, is summoned to
answer to Amira Royce, Of Moreiown, who "be-
ing married woman, and her husband being
separate from her brings this suit by Elias l..
Marble, her next friend" and the writ goes ON TO
allege tina; defendant wrongfully converted ~ HE
own use, op the oath OF January, 1873, a horse,
harness. sleigh and two buffalo robes, belonging
10 plaintiff, and In her possession, all Of the value
Of $500. Defendant In the first place, objected
to plaintiffs proceeding, on the groundthat wife
undiyorced from her husband cannot maintain an
action by next friend against a third person for
tori OF trespass This objection was oyerruled
pro f,1aa, and exceptions allowed defendant 1t
appeared from the evidence tina, plaintiff, Whose
name now IL Almim Pierce, widow ~ consid-
cradle means-persoual and real property-was
married t. Willard A. Royce In March, 1872, and
she testified that there was a verbal ante-nuptial
contract b1tween them that she should keep her
property IN her own hands after marriage, aud
that II should be under her own control. Plaintiff
and her husband did not get along very
well together, she claiming that he WAS
repeatedly violating the contract, and die
posing Of personal property the farm
for his own benefit FINALLY plaintiff con-
cluded 10 have n fictitious attachment put upon
her property In order to prevent her husband dis
posing Of H. and on the day the horse and team
disappeared, went in company with Royce to the
house of Samuel sOinenille, In Duxbnry, with
whom she made certain legal Arrangements. Her
husband aud she returned In the team he left her
at the house and drove away which the last she
ever saw Of the team. ltappeared that after dark
that evening, Royce came to the house Of Van
Deusen, who WAS his broiher-in-law and was away
from home, and left it there In the stable, taking in
IL stead team Of defendant Il was admitted by
team there aud that be drove 1t in making some
Of his professional visits for few days, return
ing It to Royce at the house Of u Estaing Billings
in waitsfeld, where Royce appeared tn be stop
ping at the time his own team had been previously
retiken to his stable. Defendant claimed that he
had never exercised ownership over the property;
that 1t was simply In his possession temporarily
a. an exchange between him and Royce for Royce's
convenience that he knew Of no trouble between
Royce and hr wife, and didn't suspect that he
was taking the horse away. Plaintiff put Joseph
Palmer on the stand, who testified " declarations
by defendant to him that he had purchased the
team made while defendant was driving H. Two
things appeared certain in the case, that both
Royce and the team disappeared very suddenly
about January cath, 1879, and have not been seen
since, and there was some evidence in regard 70
a certain dispute about paror organ between
plaintiff aud hor husband, which tended To show
that Van Dcusen must have known abont their
disputes The court found the facts for plaintiff
and gave judgment in her favor for $40 - aud
eosts. exceptions by defendant Messrs Chas
II. Heath aud l.. T. Palmer for plaintiff Messr.
T. A. Heath, Hiram Carleton aud l. l. nurant
for defendant
enaBt broken, brought ON the covenants Of a deed
given by defendant 70 plaintiff OF a small strip Of
land and mill privilege lying on both sides Of a
small stream which runs into Jones brook In the
northeast part Of Moretown The deed was given
MAY sth, 1863, and was warranty deed running
to plaintiff and his son, Ezra Wiley since de-
ceased. Deayitt obtained his title from the town
OF Moretown, having bought the land at a collec-
tors sale for unpaid taxes On the 10Th Of July
1853, Joseph Wiley, son VI plaintiff bought Of
VIM Patterson a deed Of the same land and soon
after brunght a suit Of ejectInent against his
father to possession of the lot in question
aud after two jury trials-the first at the March
term 1872, Of this court, in which the jury stood
eleven for defendant to for plaintiff the sec
ond at the September term, ls13-he got a verdict
in his favor Of -. ~ aud cn-ts, about 500. Mr.
Joseph A. Wing was plaintiffs attorney, and
Deayitt defendants Plaintiff having lost his land
now sues Deiyitt for damages, aud claims the fol-
lowing items; The value Of the land 500, damages
and costs in the county court suit slO2 rs; costs
in action brought by plaintiff against WIN. H.
Wiley for trespassing upon the land in question
and for money expended for witness fees legal ex-
pcnses etc. Plaintiff testified that he repeatedly
notified Deayitt tn defend the suits ut his own
(Deayiu' - expense, and that plaintiff should not
pay the bills Defendant filed plea in bar in
which he alleged that plaintiff could not recover
because in the trial between plaintiff aud VIM H.
Wiley he did not rely ON the deed he got from de
PENDANT, but on tho title no had gained by adverse
possessioI, and that the suit between plaintiff
and VIM. II. Wiley was not for the title, but the
possession Of the property that plaintiff had lost
ii Ik- nd aaha hat
plaintiff had not been eyicted from the land and
had not paid the execution Defendant also filed
plea in offset claiming that plaintiff owed him
some 500. Judgment in favor Of plaintiff for
sl63 10. Mr.. Joseph A. Wing for plaintiff Mr.
T. v Randall for defendant
Lydia Buck RS town Of Worcester Action of
book account, in which plaintiff claimed pay for
the support OF her sick daughter, Arabea Buck,
as follows: From December %, 1872, to March
4, 1873, nine weeks and five days, at $3.50 a
week-S3i0O from March T. 1873, to March A.
1874, at $40 per week--s590; from March 1. 1874
TO January 7, 1873, at $40 per week-siiO 1t
was conceded 10y the town that Arabela was a
proper person To be supported by the town, and
that she was sick and feeble, and the only ques-
ton was 10 the amount due. The case was re-
ferred 10 G. NJ Fisk and 5. C. Shurteff auditors
The chief dispute over plaintiffs last item II
appeared that the of the poor of Worcester
soon after his election in March, 1874, went to
plaintiff and tried to hire her tn support her daugh-
ter for one year, but they were unable to agree
upon the price. The overseer left, saying that he
should remove Arabelln but would pay for her keep
ing till he took her away. In June, 1874 he went
To plaintiffs house for the purpose of removing
her daughter and demanded her: plaintiff said