Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1876-03-22

VAAIs lNItD nIIINN TIE WIN
The following is a resume Of the cases tiled by
the jury since the term began

Dewing, boot and shoe last manufacturers at ihe
Pioneer works up the river, was formerly citizen
Of Woodbury., and during the years 1877 and 1873
was nquor-agent in that town. II seems that he
became financially embarrassed during the latter
year and on the Dist Of December his house was
burned to the ground The towns liquor, CON
tanned In seven barrels, was rescued from the
cellar, though probably considerable Of il was
spilled, and was taken to Ira G. Jewels barn near
by. Defendants house was insured In the Far
mers' Mutual and the town Immediately trusted
the insurance company, without his knowledge, to
secure the sum which the sclectmon- Edmund T.
Ball Ethan Airsworth aud Edwin Bruce claimed
he owed the town for the sales Of liquor. ON the
9th Of December they came to his temporary
residence after the fire and the plaintiff claimed
made settlement, agreed to by defendant, by
which he was to pay the town four hundred and
eighty-soven dollars and thirteen cents, aud was
to accompany one Of the sclecmen To Montpelier
the next day. and draw the money nom the IN
surance company The trip was postponed for
one cause or another and In few days defendant
learned Of the secret trustee suit, and informed
the selrctmcn that his coHnsel-llon. G II Heath
Of Montpelier-had advised him not to pay them
for the present The main question IN Tie case
was whether bona ftle settlement was made ON
the 27th Of December, and If not whether The de-
PENDANT really owed any thing to the town. Both
sides washed a good deal Of dirty linen in public,
during the trial-and it was evident that the liquor
agency had been managed by all the town officials
in an improper way. one selectman received a
case OF gin from an agent Of large liquor house,
in Boston at certainly not an exorbitant price,
and the defendant carried on liquor business on
] ia hpp do al lie aft hp ftV
He denied that a settlement was made on the 9TH
Of December and claimed that he was so dis
tmcted with his misfoitunes at the time that lac
hardly knew what he did and that pressed hard
By the selectmen, and away from counsel he CON
sented to injustice in a weak moment His coun-
sci also argued for the accounts between him and
the town, that he owed little or nothing really.
The jury found for the plaintiff for four hum
dred and twenty-three dollars and seventy four
cents Messrs D. T. iAmson and Homer W
Heaton for plaintiff Mcssrs. Heath aud carlton
and T. V Randall for defendant
A. $ Cross and Wife rs. j. NJ. Iempletan -
The plaintiffs are farmers in Gouldsyille North
held) The defendant is a well known physician
in Montpelier. 1t appeared from the evidence,
substantially, that ON Sunday afternoon the 10th
( Of August 1878 Mr. Eugene W Robbins, with hi.
wife his little girl and Mrs Cross left their house
t in a buggy drawn by one horse, and drove
S towards Montpelier for a pleasure ride The de-
! iendant who had been to visit patient in that
i vicinity, was returning to Montpelier behind
: them, at a good pace. When near the re.idcnc,
E, Of Obed Merrill, in Berlin, between GAINESVILLE and
II Gouldsyille, he overlook Mr. aud Mrs Charles II
a Freeman Of Montpelier, who were driving ont il
. buggy, and in attempting to pass them, lis team
II struck stone by the side of the road, whcl
t frightened his horse and made him uncomfortable
a DR. Templeton was thrown out on to his head
st and the horse, becoming freed from the buggy
t. dashed ON ahead Mrs. C.oss team was ju,
& ahead and that became involved, in some man
II ner in the disaster, and Mrs Cross and Mr.. Rob
bins were hurt Mrs Cross was either throwi
Ell out or else she jumped out, through fright
The testimony differed There was also SOM
y conflict Of testimony to the extent Of her inju
N ries She and her friends claimed that they wer
severe, while the defendant put in evidence t
N show her bruises slight The jury, how
le ever had no chance to determine the ques
ie ton by consideration Of the facts in tn
y case The action was brought in the form Of
y declaration in trespass to maintain which, in law
" it is necessary to show that the defendant wa
l. malicousy and wilfully the direct Of plan
lie tfs injuries. Mr. Pitlin, of counsel for defend
I'd ant made the point, after the testimony had bee
re closed that the most that had been made out b
r the plaintiff was carelessness or negligence 0
Of the part Of the defendant in attempting to dry
he By and that therefore the declaration had NJ
~ been sustained The court held the point 10 b
IN well taken and ordered verdict for defendant
IN The defendant raised another legal question du
re ing the trial which has never been decided in tn
ct state and il it had been carried to the ssprem
We Court, would have become one of the noted ease
oil of the year As is well known, by our statute
nd is unlawful to travel on the highway the Sal
ct bath, except from necessity or charity In tn
On case, the plaintiffs were driving for pleasure, an
II were violating the law in so doing; the defcndai
al was journeyng, after visiting patient, which
Of clearly an act Of necessity, lie lawfully @
ed the highway Query. even fthe plaintiffs acto
" had been on the case, instead Of trespass. conl
on they have recovered, although the accident OF
lis CURED by reason Of the defendants negligence
We An analogous case in Massachusetts was decide
en- in the negative Messrs Carpenter x Plumle.
er- and James n johnson, for plaintiffs Messr
en- Clarence H. Pitkin, Charles W Porter Francis '
er Randall and George NJ. Fisk, for defendant
~ Amra Pierce rs. Dennison J. Freeman an
~ Coin b. Evansville plaintiff is a double wido,
y once by death and by divorce, and carries
a farm near Moretown village The defendan
also live in Moretown and in 1872 were in bus
- ness together at the Hollow Plaintiff married
- her second coyerture-one Willard A. Royce
March, 1872, a verbal ante-nuptia contract hayir
been made by them, as she claims, that he was
have no control Of the property, but that it was
remain in her hands In the fall Of 1879 deieu
ants bought twenty tubs OF butter made on h
m farm (she testified, from herself personally the d
nj PENDANTS, from Royce, and agreed to pay thr'
Ia hundred and two dollars and twenty cents for
ia in thirty or sixty days. Before the payment b
,ot came due, she and Royce quarreled about warrior
in things and she testified that she forbade defen
M ants paying any Of the butter money over 10 Royc
80 Her evidence tended to show that she Motif,
ho them not to pay it to Royce twice. and Uria
- Howe, Of Moretown, and Elias Marble Of Fay
va ton plaintiff brother testified to similar notifc
To- lions on their part and to being present on oi
particular occasion, the Goth OF January, 1877
Of The defendants denied any notification on Il
IA plaintiff part at any rate till after they had
nd tied for the debt with Royce by giving their note
ast Soon after the Goth Of January 1873 planti
.ld brought petition for divorce against Royce m
he he ran away and is now living in the town
IN Flint, Wisconsin. The defendants counsel ma,
his the legal objections 10 PLAINTIFF recovering
the case first, that plaintiff at the time the bu
he ter was sold was married woman, living wi
nj. her husband and hence could not maintain III
no action in her own name even although she Ii
m since been divorced second that Royce, duril
NO the existence of the marriage contract, was Il
nd guardian Of the children, and that the Proba
lin Court having assigned certain property to Il
.en children, which they clamed) included sew,
led COWS the produce Of those cows was und
MI Royces control and he could dispose Of it II
rtv records OF the Probate Court were put into 4
,at case to show the sum which had been assigned
his the children and widow respectively, and it a
or peared that Boyce's bondsnen, after his digl
10 settled his guardianship account with the Pr
Nv bate Court and paid in ninety dollars. The eou
NJ oyer-rued their objections and the question "
for go to the Supreme Court for settlement. II
,it- jury found for the plaintiff two hundred al
.od forty-seven dollars and eighteen cents Messi
cir Heath and Carlton for plaintiff Messrs. Geas
are and Field and f. A. Heath, for defendants
his Norman W. Braley and d, L. Waworth, 4
M ministrators of Bother W. Bartholomew, rs. l.