Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1875-08-18

rakcs, with Marbles tools, at Marbles shop. When
plaintiff had made thifty-cght Of the fifty, dc
PENDANT Slayton, rs constable by the direction Of
defendant Robinson seized the property, finished
and unfinished ukcs on q writ against Marble.
By plaintiffs contract with Mafhleho was 10 have
fifteen Of the fakcs for his pay, and he went and
rcple,inod ffteen u the seized mkos, which had
been stored away by the constable The county
court held that rcpcyln wouicn't lie on these
facts and found for defendants The supreme
court reserved their decision. Mr. J o. Living
ston for plaintiff Mcssrs II W lloaton and
Charles H. Heath for defendants.
Lydia Buck a. Town Of Worcester. 1heplainun
brought an action Of bool-account against the de-
PENDANT town for payment for the support Of her
daughter Arnbela Buck The account consisted
Of three items for support at three different peri
dds The main dispute was over the last item,
for supporting the paupor from March 4, iS7l to
January 7, 1875 foHy-four weeks, at $40 per week,
$40 The defendant claimed that in June 1874,
the oyersecr Of the poor went to plaintiffs house
for the purpose Of removing Arabea' and de-
mandcd the paupor ofthe plaintiff Plaintiff said
he might take her with tho clothes she bad on,
which were practically nothing, and The overseer
left without her Tho auditor and the county
court, last spring. held that this did not dobar the
plaintiff from recovering for Ambelias support
after that aud allowed her SIG The supreme
court, through Judge Ross, sustained the decision
of the lower court
Jacob T. Whoelock rs Town u llsrdwick. The
plaintiff sues the defendant town To recover dam
ages for injuries to hs horse on the highway
The case was tried by the jury at the last March
term Of the county court and verdict found for
defendant During that trial two notices we're
shown, one by plaintiff aud the other by defend
ant, which latter WAS undoubtedly insufficient
The plaintiff claimed that he gave but one notice
to the defendant, and that 20 Mr. Alden T. Jude
vine, first seleciman Of the town, at his house
Plaintiff offered to prove by bis own testimony
waiver Of any defect in the notice on The pant u
Jndeyine 10 this defendant objected that Jude
,,ine couldn't bind the town, IL he did waive and
the offer was ruled out, plnintd excepting Tie
supreme court, through Judge Powers sustained
the ruling Of Judge Redhed in the county court
Thomas Reed 49, Town Of Calais This was
also road case, the plaintiff alleging that on the
9th Of March, 1874, De received injuries by reason
Of the insudicieucy Of q certain piece Of highway
In the town oi Calais leading past the residence
Of franklin Ridcout In said town The question
was as 20 the sunicioncy of the notice the -uit
having been brought since tie passage OF the
statute providing that the notice of claim against
a town for damages for injuries caused by de-
icctiye highway must state the place where aud
the time when distinctly In che county court
last March, Judge Eedfeld ruled that The notice
was insufficient, and ordered a verdict ior the de-
PENDANT town, 20 which plaintiff excepted Tie
notice WAS as follows
CALAIS. March %. lsit
Tow =. Slay'on' Andrew j. h''s'u a.' WIN VINE,
,',,, ,..a y, ,, 80, c,,,. t,r ,nf.. done
myself and team. In he highway nsaf tle residence u
Friukun Rdroui. dih da, Of March. a. d. isli.
THOMAS hll0.
Prom survey Of the locality, made hy Hon.
Nelson A. Chase it appeared that there was only
ono road passing directly hy The residence II
Franklin Rideout. which rad was % hll road
running uortheasterly from Cah.s Centre and
East Calais siNty-nino rods northeast Of Ride
outs house the Branch road, so called, rum
Mug nottherly from North Montpelier 90 East
Calais intcrcscgied with iie hill road. The place
Of accident was ON tho hil ruad, between Ride
outs house and the Intersection Of the branch
aud hin ads-for, three rods northeast Of Ride
out house and serentysiS rod- southwestern the
point Of Intersection. Ou tlc hili road, seventy
six aud firc-teuihs rods, southwest Of Edeouts
house-betweeu that aud calais Centre, was tie
residence Of Naorous Peek a stnght line
drawn across Che feed from the centre Of the
highway opposite kideouts house los an easterly
direction TO the nearest centre Of the branch road,
was thirty-hve rods and eighteen links long.
kidoouts house wason ihe further side Of the ihl
road from the branch road-"as not situated Ia
the field between The hill road and Tie branch
road- but Ia The field ou the westerly side Of the
hill road, and IT, front door was reached and IT,
approach was from the bin rad The branch
road, OF course' vas east OF TIE hili road.
Upon his statement oi lAci- the court, through
Judge Barrett decided as follows ms is
case IN which the subject OF nouce Is inc pnnci-
PAL one Inc notice IN ih's case d very meagre
~ substance ana ~ some other respects but we
are disposed 10 CONSIDER the question OF ITS de-
reefs only IN reference Z" inc designation IN IT of
the place where tne alesed injury vas received.
us pam from WHAT i contained ID ihe OH OF eN-
cepuons' ana rom the plan OF locality attached to
inc Dill OF exceptions a4 part OF H. m'de oy
Judge 'hase' tha' 'h' place oil accident was eapa-
pe oil mu'h more spec'hc ana pointed designa-
uoh' only one OBJECT Us named with reference 10
inc place oil accident sue clearinghouse Of Ride
out, ana me place is sud To Toe near the house Of
Rideont It shown 10 have been forty
rods rom the mousse i"eniy-sN rods from the
place where the branch road separates from the
| road on which the palcs Is ana the branch rad
runs within tlrty-t'e rods Of the house Now It
I Is to be remarked that the notice omits To say
upon which highway ron which side Of Ridcouts
house or To designate TIE road with reference 10
the separation Of the branch road from the other.
When place Is said to be near an object named,
the INST Impression we ordinarily get H. that Il is
nearer TO that than TO any other prominent and
equally important object In We" OF all this tes-
umohy' the notice doesn { point io the place par
ucnarly enough 10 answer 20 the idea and re-
that notice IN his hand and going 70 the locality
in question, any one would be quite as likely to be
hndered as helped 10y II, IN determining the pre-
else point The acton OF the legislature on the
SUBJECTIVE acts Of 1870 and 1874 show the pub
lie idea and policy and the cause Of discussion,
and the decision OF the courts during that time
have been IN conformity TO mat idea and policy,
aithough certain cases have presented peculiaH-
ties, aneCting the dctlOuNi the statute regards