Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1876-01-05
Lamoillc County Court.


HON J. !. hhhflELp, FftSidutJ JNdJe.
Hos. A. b. SMITH.
Hos A. NJ WOODBURY., ''ss'e'''" ""'$'S
W. H. II. kENFiup. C7eyk
MASON CuAfFEE, Sheriff
!. = THOMPSON, >tdies iuofHeH
Henry OviATr, Reporter.
The lAmoe County Court has taken 4 recess
till January 18th, when Judge Powers will pre-
side, and the tflal Of jury cases will be resumed
Judge Rediield tried four cases in as many days
one Of them having rs many as forty witnesses-a
large amount OF business in so short a time The
remaining business Of the term will consume
about week
The following is resume Of the eases tried
Ilemau b. Waterman rs j. W. Fowler. appel
liant This was an action of trespass in the free
hold to settle the ownership Of lot 40. T., in the
second division Of that part Of johnson which was
formerly Sterling. The trespass was alleged TO-
have been committed On the inst Of November,
1873, and consisted Of cutting Of a few trees
the real question at issue being the title to the
lot Neither party showed title bacll OF the orig
inal grantees Of the town. The plaintiff relied
upon deed, given in 1889, By Joshua SAWYER to
Joseph and Thomas Waterman this uncle and
father samuel Merriam and Judge Vernon
Waterman, and acts of possession on his part
alleged to have been continuous since 1913 The
defendant based his title upon foreclosure OF q
mortgage on portion of the land in question.
from David Dyke, made by Judge Samuel
Remick now a resident of Boston aud upon al
legged acts of POSSESSION since 1913 The evidence
was not furnished till Thursday night and time
being short, the counsel waived arguments, and
the case WIS submitted under the charge Of the
court The jury returned a verdict in favor Of
plaintiff, for one dollar and costs Messrs George
l.. Waterman and NJ. o. Heath for plaintiff
Messrs. George Wilkins and f. h sawyer for
defendant
lamoillo County National Bank u.s. Edgar Noycs,
appellant This wasa family quarrel between the
cashier Of the bank Albert l.. Noyes, and his
uncle, the defendant 1t appeared that upon the
failure Of Noyes brothers, in Hyde Park, the de-
PENDANT had claim against them which he al
legged amounted to twenty-five dollars and fifty
cents, and which the schedule shows to be twenty
two dollars and three cents Immediately after
the failure, plaintiff ondeayored to procure
settlement Of the insolyents' debts By the cred-
tors, at the rate Of thirty cents ON the dollar lie
asked appellant to sign the.paper, and he finally
did so, binding himself 10 accept the compromise
providing the signatures of all the creditors were
obtained. This was never done; about this time
plaintiff claims that defendant came into the bank
and borrowed twenty-five dollars Of cashier
plaintiff made memorandum, and put the mem.
oandum into the drawer of cashier. Defendant
having been asked 10 pay the debt sometime
after, refused saying that 1t was in liquidation Of
his claim against Noyos brothers, and that plain
Till had paid 1t To him for that purpose The
trial was quite bitter, but the circumstances were
too much for appellant, and the jury returned
verdict In favor OF plaintiff for the full amount
claimed Mr. George L. Waterman for plaintiff
Mr., Philip X Gleod for defendant
Luther foss rs. Daniel Bedoll Action Of re-
pleyin for q sorrel horse and COW Plaintiff lives
in Morristown, and defendant, who Is his son-in-
law, lives in Fillmore Sometime ia 1862 Bedell
and his wife were pressed for money and Mrs
Bcdell borrowed sixty dollars from her father.
giving him rs security, lien ON the horse aud
cow in question When plaintiff went to enforce
his lieu, defendant resisted on the ground that
the title to the stock was in him, and his wife had
no right TO give a lien on them Plaintiff claimed
that he was either priyy to her acts, consented
to them afterwards. The jury found verdict for
plaintiff. Mr. George l.. Waterman for plaintiff
Mr.. 4. X. Gleed for defendant
Joseph iiutchlhS, ADMINISTRATOR oi khuda Ben
nington, rs J. }. Mix. Action Of troyor Plain
till lives in Wolcott defendant in Huntington
Defendant was son-in-law Of the deceased woman
and lived with her in her house in Huntington
at time of her death After the funeral the per
sonal property OF the deceased, consisting OF two
or three feather beds aud other small stun, was
divided among the heirs, Of which the defendants
two daughters were two, and as the deceased had
no debts il was supposed there was no need Of
going to the Probate Court The plaintiff had
one of the granddaughter in his family, and get
ting himself appointed administrator, he brought
suit against defendant for appropriatng the prop
eny. It was such a small case and the defendant
so evidently acted ingood faith that the jury found
In his favor, Messrs. Il r. Parker and George l.
Waterman for plaintiff Mr.. r. r. Gleed for de-
PENDANT