Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1876-03-15

more than twelve nor less than seven DAYS peloie
the dag designated in the warning for holding uie
meeting This evidence, and the record Oh the
school meeting was rejected by the court ana
exceptions taken Judgment was rendered Tor
the plaintiff Judgment reversed and cause re-
manded White and Rowcll for plaintiff He
bard and Clark for defendant
Sylvester Tillotson rs William Fellows, appel
ant-Action Of book account, upon which
judgment to account was rendered and auditor
appointed A hearing was had and report made
by the auditor, upon which the court rendered
Judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant eH-
cepted. Judgment reversed, and judgment Tor
defendant for eight dollars aud ifty-four cents and
costs White for plaintiff IIebard for defendant
National Bank Of Chelsea u.s. Jarvis d. lsham --
Action on note The execution Of the note not
being denied by defendant, the plaintiff, at the
opening put In no other evidence, and rested his
case The defendant thereupon claimed that the
plaintiff was not entitled 10 recover on the ground
that the note was payable to order, and that the
endorsements were in blank, and had not been
filed up by the plaintiff, and requested verdict
for the defendant, which the court refused to d.
rect The plaintiff introduced rs a witness one
rcctors Of the plaintiff bank, aud II appeared
that he was tie party that induced the bank 10
discount the note which they had at first refused
10 do The plaintiff asked the witness the follow
ing question "Did tho bank discount and receive
the note in the ordinary course Of business p To
this the defendant objected, as calling for an
expression Of an opinion as 10 a conclusion Of law
but the court permitted the question 20 be put
and the witness answered II in the Affirmative
The witness was also asked II the bank received
1t in good faith The defendant made the same
objection to this question, but the court permitted
it to be put aud the witness answered It in the
affirmative To the admission Of this evidence
defendant excepted The jury, under direction OF
the court, returned a special verdict that the
plaintiff received the note In the ordinary course
Of business, and in good faith and also rendered
a verdict for the plaintiff to recover the amount
OF the note With the court. lIebard for plain
tiff; IL Ballard and Rowell for defendant
C. Boughton rs Charles D. Standish, appel
liant Action Of assumpsit to the value OF
a bale Of goods The defendant wrote to the
plaintiff in New York ior some goods. The plaintiff
sent him some with the request that he return
them Immediately II they were not what he
wanted The defendant finally returned them,
| and the question was whether he did so as soon
as he should have done The jury returned a
verdict for defendant Judgment reversed, and
| judgment rendered for plaintiff, one hundred and
sixty-four dollars and fifty cents. Perrin ioI
plaintiff Rowcll for defendant
Margaret stanton u.s. David simpson Action on
the case founded on the statute, to recover dam
! AGES for the killing Of John stanton claimed e
be the husband Of the plaintiff, by one Snow
while in state Of intoxication from liquors al
legged to have been unawiully furnished To hin
by the defendant In the trial below plaintiff re-
covered verdict for one thousand and fifty dol
lars, Judgment affirmed Rogers for the plain
tit Clarke Tor the defendant
The court carried several cases away with them
resqrviur decision