Essex County herald. [volume] (Guildhall, Vt.) 1873-1964, 1875-11-20
Court Reeord-coos County.
soUruErS DISTRICTS STANLEY, Jvs11cl

SpOihEIN BisthlCIir oIASLEf, JUSTICE.
Albert G. Messenger VS.. David P.
Hazen. Action OF Trover, for value of
certain hcmlock bark, alleged to hsye
been taken from plaintiffs land in Ran
dolph, by one Daniel Rand and sold to
the defendant. The question in controy-
sey was as to the line between land Of
plaintiff and Rand 1t appeared by the
testimony that there are Two spotted lines
running nearly parallel, the plaintiff
claiming to the north line and the defend
ant claiming that the south line was the
established range line between the two
lots, which disputed question it seems
was difficult one for the jury to ans
wer, as they were out all night and did
not agree upon their verdict until 7 O'Clock
in the morning. Verdict for defendant.
Fletcher Haywood and Crawford for
plaintiff; Twitchell & Evans for defend
ant.
Edmund McIntire VS.. Reaben Plaisted.
Action on the case to recover the value of
a COW alleged by plaintiff to have been
Injured and rendered valueless while be-
ing chased by defendants dog. Plain
tiff introduced evidence tending to show
that his farm adjoined that of the defend
ant; that there was q division fence be-
tween the two farms; that by reason of
the defective condition of defendants
part of said fence, plaintiffs cow escaped
into defendants field. Defendant in the
attempt to drive the COW from his prem
ises by setting his dog on her, caused her
to jump over the fence breaking her leg.
Defendant claimed that the dog was the
property Of another person.; that the
COW was never driven from his premises
as alleged by plaintiff; that he never saw
the COW on the his premises, and that he
never set the dog on the COW; that the
plaintiff owned bloodhound at the time
of the injury to said cow, which dog the
plaintiffs sons were in the habit of set
ting on to their own cattle when driving
them, and that said injury was thus
caused. Verdict, not guilty, with specia
verdict that damage to plaintiff was oc
casioned by dog owned, kept or in pos
session of defendant. Ray & Drew fol
plaintiff; Burns & Haywood for defend
ant.
Walter Buck VS.. Timothy H. Hutchin
son. Appeal from decision of Justice
Action on account for use of plaintiffs
horse eleven days at 81 per day, and in
terest amounting to $l3.33. The actor
was commenced in 1868, had been pre-
viously tried by jury and by referee
Plaintiff claimed that defendant was t.
pay reasonable compensation for tn
use Of the horse, while defendant claimed
that he was to have the horse for it's keep
ing.
Defendant introduced evidence to prov
that at the last conversation upon the sub
ject, which was had in John SmalfS jew
elry shop in Gsrham, Buck agreed to lie
him have the horse for his keeping, ant
that this was the final trade upon whicl
he took the horse. Upon the main ques
ton at issue in the case, whether Hutch
irson was to have the horse for its keep
ing or was to pay for same, there wa
much contradictory testimony introduced
, Verdictifor plaintiff for $l3.33 and inter
est from date of writ, amounting to $3.50
s LIQUOR CASES.
Ten fines of $50. each for violation o
the liquor law have been paid during tn
present term. ...
.. KNOTS UNITED. ned.
Divorces have been decreed as follows
Moses Wilson divorced from Emily D
Wilson; Kate Folsom from e. H. Folsom
Eliza Jane Rich from Spaulding S. Rich
Mary J. McCuaig from Angus McCuaig