Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1875-11-03

defendant, purchased n ihfin IN Derby, and had
the same conveyed to defendant, Mary T.. Wllbur
in trust for his four minor children, and shortly
after made a contract with the orators 10 erect ON
the premises barn, the orators ut the time Of
making contract knowing the security Of the title,
the orators completed the barn In the summer Of
1870, and filed in Derby Town Clerks Office A
statement in writing, asserting claim 10 n lien
upon the prcmosis for the security Of thoirpav tr
services and materials furnished The ora.
tors brought this bill in chanccry in Orleans
county, 10 enforce lien upon the barn and prom.
scs The omtors also brought suit against dc.
PENDANT Mary I. Wilbur, for theirpay. The chan.
Gerry case came to Supreme Court on appeal bv the
orators and the ease at law on exceptions BY the
plaintiff These cases were entered with the
court" Judge Ross having both cases J. r. AL
len for orators w D. Crane for defendants
L. II. paddleiord, appellant, u.s. Smith & Gal
bnith-acion 81 assumpsit for goods sold tried
by jury at Caledonia County Court. DecoAbor
term, 1879 and verdict for plaintiff IN 1870 the
defendant ordered Of the plaintiff water wheel
and some other machinery, The plaintiff sent
some machinery and q water wheel, but they were
not what the defendants ordered At the time Of
shipping the machinery 90 defendants. plaintia
sent no invoice but the defendants finding tho
machinery at the depot at Barnet went and
looked 1t over 10 some extent, aud found that in
some respects it was not what they ordered. but
took it and conveyed il to their mills, keeping it
about a month, when they returned il b the defot
where il has since remained; but defendants gave
plaintiff no notice whatever that they had re-
turned the machinery to the depot During the
time the defendants had the machinery at their
mills they wrote two letters to plaintiff. telling
plaintiff that they did not want portion Of the
machinery, but received no reply to their letters
The question in the case was whether the icfen.
danis acts In relation to the machinery con.ti-
tutcd ia law an acceptance Of &c. Also when the
inry returned tholryordict Jude Boss-bcforo Tie
verdict bad been road-onquircd Of the foreman 10
the jury had added interest TO the amount Of the
plaintiffs bin, who replied that they had not
whcrcupon the Court told the jury 10 return and
reconsider their verdict, aud add tho interest.
which thoy did Tor which the defendant. filed a
motion TO set aside the verdict Judge Ross over
ruled the motion. Judgment Of county court Tor
plaintiff affirmed, the Chief Justice, rendering tie
decision
Alfred Pierce tt. Lorenzo Whitcomb.-Ca.o
from Chittendcn county tried hy Timothy J.
Reddeld, Lewis l.. Bass and y d Mddebrook,
referees by whom the following facts are reported
Tho plaintiff Ia the evening Of February 3. 1879.
went 70 defendants house and desired to gc, six
bushels Of oats the defendant was a farmer aud
and raised large quantities Of grain Tor sale. he
kept bis grain in a granary some distance from
his house. but was not In the habit Of selling grain
from ont the gnnary, or making contracts Tor its
sale in the grnary but used the gmnary only for
the purpose of storage defendant did not want to
let plaintiff have The six bushels Of oats, but a,
plaintiffs earnest request and Tor his accommoda-
ton, concluded TO le, him have them, and plaiuul
and defendant wen, together. taking lantern 90
granary 10 got the oats and proceeded Go the upper
story where the oat Din was, defendant went into
another apartment from where the bin WIS after
the half bu-hcl measure leaving plaintiff m The
dark, and plaintiff. without amy invitation from
defendant, followed him, and, making q mi..tep
fell through large aperture in the 0oor. made
Tor the purpose Of receiving and discharging grain,
that Che aperture Ia the floor was not dangerous 10
persons acquainted with the gmnary, but would
be so 10 persons not acquainted with IT, especially
In the dark that plaintiff had knowledge Of the
aperture IN the floor the plaintiff IN his iill De-
ceiyed great bodily injury, and the referees
sessed his damages at the sum Of - zoo II Ia the
opinion Of the court he was entitled 10 recover
The county court rendered judgment for plaintiff
pro f0rHH The question WAS whether The de-
PENDANT was guilty Of snch negligence in having
such place in bis granary, and suffering plain
til to go there, provided the plaintiff WAS in The
exercise Of due care and diligence, as would allow
plaintiff 10 recover Judgment Of county court
reversed and judgment for defendant Wales
Il q. IL a. 3 O. ia an
Ballard for defendant
parthens beard rs. Connecsicut and rassumpsic
Rivers Railroad Company The opinion Of tho
court, given by Judge barrett, sufficiently ex-
plains the case " This is an action brought hy the
female plaintiff to recover damage which she su.-
tanned at the Wells River depot She was az the
depot with reference TO taking the train that even
ing and she wanted to got from the platform on the
railroad side Of the depot, down on 10 the street,
Not finding the door or the stairway which leads
down through the depot, she beat about for some
other place, and she found some stairs on the
north side OF the depot, leading down. She went
| down these stairs and when she reached the bot
| tom, She got 20 a platform From that platform
she stepped down some four or five feet before
She reached tho ground and it hurt her some
| This platform, from which she fen, was made
| by the express company, and these stairs were
used by the expires, company Tor it, special ae
commodaton, Tor getting mp and down with their
| luggage There was some question 10 the case as
to whether that platform from which She fen WAS
In the territory owned by the railroad or outside
Of that territory, and that, II it wa. outside Of
the territory, the railroad would not be RESPONSE
bic for it, because the railroad didn't put 1t up
| verdict was found FOR the plaintiff under Ger.
tain instructions, by the county court and excel-
tons taken by defendant Access 10 and egre.s
from the railroad depot at ellis River for persons
takins and leaving the cars is by Ibis platform be-
tween the street and the railroad side Of the depot
There is no question TO plaintiffs right to be at
the depot and on the platform, or as 10 her right
to leave II and 20 to the street at that time Size
was there and did what is stated in the e1reI-
ions nor Is there any question 10 the duty Of
| the defendant 10 do what was reasonably neces-
| sary on the depot premises 10 enable her 10 do
| It without danger TO her person. If she was in the
| exercise oil proper care. The head Of the north
| erly stairs opened upon and merged in the
upper platform; that and the stairs were in defen
| dant territory, and constituted the provision
| made for the use and accommodation oil persons
| who had 10 do with the trains at that lIace In
| the darkness, II would seem very likely that
| stranger having occasion to get from the upper
platform TO the street, would regard the stairs at
the north end Of the depot as designed to furnish
astt Oh stttln. the Street
| II it wasn't so designed, aud In fact was unsafe
| TO stranger for such purpose in the darkness,
1t was incumbent on the defendant to forefend
| against an injury, by closing up the head Of the
| stairs, or notifying in some plain way against
using those stairs for getting 10 the street The
| subject is thoroughly discussed aud the law de-
| Yeloped in Mcdowell and wife u.s. the Chicago
aud Northwestern railroad In the twenty-sixth
Iowa and the cases referred 10 by the Chief jus
| uce, ami IN note to that case by Judge Redheld
IN the second volume Of Railway Cases page five
hundred aud thirty-two In view of that law the
request, a. TO which exception was taken seems
frivolous The open stairs on the milroad plat
form led plaintiff. without her fault To the point
q harm. That baited her into the trap, Of which
the defendant had the principal charge The re-
suit is, judgment aiilnnod
James fenton ct al rs. James NJ Tyler ct al
ms was bill IN chancery from Windham county,
Drought by several members Of the Catholic
church against the board Of prudential commit
tee Of the graded school in Brattleboro and the
school district praying ioran injunction to restrain
the committee and school district from excluding
a large hummer oil Catholic children from the pup
lie school Inc oratoR and defendants agreed sub
suntlaily upon the facts viz: That on the I'D day
oil June, 1914 some Of the Catholics applied to me
o9hmttee OF teachers for their permission ior tne
absence OF the Catholic children-of whom there
were about one hundred and fifty in the school
on the following day, being Corpus Christi day
that hey might attend religious services nc the
Nathoheehurch. The committee and teachers ie-
ellned 10 giant permission for this absence but ihe
children AbSenied themselves by command OF
their parents and friends and after their religious
services were finished, on the same day portlun