Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1876-08-16
Supreme Court.

10 married wonan living apart from hrr il'
hand. NAV maintain Il suit by next frlen'
for the conversion Of property hell in he
own rioht. The County Court ruled tn
plff. could sustain the action and TIN
II Court affirmed the judgment. Judgmen
! for plaintiff for $ljl.64 damages. sayln
that the objection should nave been mad
d by plea and abatement.
p +. Robrchard vs.. JAS. &. French
II iudcm, mt of Comfy Court affirmed with
out hearing.
- Indictment Of County Court affirmed with
| out hearing
j William Dravitt V. Rolan Knapp; inlg
!, ment affirmed.
Walter Fuller vs. j. f. Eddy an nc
ion of tre>pass 9uar. riausani. The
: plaintiff was in possession of the premises
I n question under Il bond for a deed iron
: %lef.uIant. About the first of January
i. 1874. the notes mentioned in the bone
. b,in. due and unpaid, the plaintiff went
lwtv on Il visit leaving his son, Il lad IL
, wear, of are. in charge of the business: thu
defendant went to the premises AMI lind
inc the boy out of doors. entered with two
men and took Possession of the premises,
and put the plaintiff household effects out
Of the house and made Il shell on the
premises. The County Court ruled that
The defendant had 4 right. after condition
Of the mortgage broken. to enter and take
possession. and thlt the manner of the
entry in this ease WAS not - with Il high
hand and multitude of people" within the
meaning of the statute of private entry and
ictalner; which judgment for the defend
mt was affirmed.
Ltmira Macon vs.. Town of Berlin;
,ction of assumpsit to recover for board of
IN alleged transient paupcr. Judgment
If County Court reversed and Judgment
for defendant.
Jos. A. Wing v. Henry Chlpmtn; &C
ton of falls. warranty on sale of Il yoke of
ken. The warranty claimed was h II the
cattle were good working oxen. The evil
lense in the County Court tended to prove
that the oxen We're unruly and utterly un-
lit Ior working oxen. This Court held
ttEtt there WAS error in the County Court
n admitting evidence on the part OF the
defendant tending 10 prove that the oxen
were worth all the plaintiff paid for them
ior beef or other purposes than thu IN re
poet t. which the warranty WAS made.
ia :yment Of County Court reversed. and
cause r~emandt'l for new trial. Wing pro
&c. Heath Il irleton for defend tnt.
David w. Folsom V. David {. Cannon,
ENr. Jud gnent of County Court affirm
Il. ~liraton. Heath 4 Carleton, Wing for
plaintiff; Ltm>on for defendant.
Moses f. Howard vs.. Lorenzo Black
Action of rrplcvin for cattle of he plain
if impoun|rl by defend INT. Held tn II
he defendant having filed no avowrv.
conld not Introduce evidence in iu,tIiict-
ton. and til 1t there WAS error in the Cum
" Court in admitting such testimony
lnd-r the general issue. judgment of
County Court reversed. and cause rem md
ed for new trial. VIM, Livingston for
plaintiff; Heath X Carleton for defendant
jos. :. Dodge and wifi. V. ID. W. bud
ley. Action on HE case for negligence.
lhi~ is The wrll-known Fair Ground case,
md came To- this Colrt upon the question
Of the authority Of the Court I'm Ter the
statute t. adiui-e that 500 damages
The verdict in this cl>e-to b" nominal
itmtwcS. tl,l Restrict the plaintiffs cost
uTuet. IN decision reserved. Wing fpr
plaintiff: lIea h X Carleton and llc.,ton
.or defendant,
Moses f.. Howard V. Randall 4 Du-
ant Judgment of County Court for
r~ltintitf affirmed. Wing for plaintiff.
Defend m pro Sc.
Merritt and \ ma burlington vs.. Town
'f Warren. Action Tor IN irv on highway
lhr notice in This case wt> held bad.
Judgment of County Court for plaintiff:
reward ana Judgment for l%eftndlnt. ca
ucntrr X rlumicv. Heath AMI Car cton for
plaintiff; Gleason x Field. Fisk for drfen.
liant.
First N%uional B,n& of Montpelier vs.
Ashley II lbhtri ct al. The d~rfrn1lnf
'Itlmrl thtt the state Courts l.ln no iuris-
I ~. 80 g.:
Al" p"trtlr>: but .Nrlu-iv, Jurisdiction of
>lcl! actions i in the Uni;rA : are- Courts.
The IN lgnncnt Of the County Court. that
thr : It, Courts have Jurisdiction. and
hat plaintiff recover nmount of no.e de-
Haired upon; affirmed, Gleason x Field
fnr pl ,@intiff; Wing. Hath X Carleton for
lei, nIant.
Estate of ID. X. Smith y. Norman Bra
ley. This is an appeal from IN order of
he Pro ate Court directing he PRODUCTION
" thu defend mi of certain books and pa
prs relating u til" administration of ;h-
estate Of u. X Smith Ivy Is. W. Barthulo-
mrw."f whom dvttnlln; is administrator.
\ bill in chlnctlv for discovery. touching
II" sam matters. WIS also heard rs L.
Court upon demurrer. IN connection with
thl~ rl~". Petition renewed: Vino for
pltinttl: l~lrltnn. French for defendant.
Fred Il. Stevens V. + :. Ganni>un:
Judgment of County Cuurt affirmed
Heal X Carleton f"t yltintif: Living
ston for defendant.
Henry IL. NJ Cluul y. i. Y. X. kent.
A>>umps 10 Recover money paid ~ u~urv.
The defendant pleaded in defence :. con.
racf f release TN i,r seal. The County
CoArt ru'"llht THE rri-,>c brinr f,r GOOD
Consideration WAS valid. which judrnrn,
this t"mt affirmed, the Court intima,inr
hat It would he otherwise when the con-
~li"rltIon l. merely nominal. and for the
purpose OF avoiding the law. Heath X
Carleton for plaintiff; Wing Tor defendant
Lorenzo Black V. Moses +. Howard,
ictlon of tre>lm>s for damage done ly
'i"i"ndants cattle. Case stands upon Dc
ni'lr'r Il" dricn l1nt's special plea in bar.
.iir~ln- that plaintiffs part Of division
fence was not = legal fence. Decision re-
verse;; Heath 4 Carleton for plaintiff.
Livingston. Wing for defendant.
Alnlrt Pierce vs.. F eeman & Evan.
Judgment OF County Court for plaintiff for
>2o2.l2. damages. affirmed. Heath 4
Carleton for plaintiff. +. a. Heath. Glya.
son 4 Field for defendant.
Randall X Durant V. y. c. Bacon
he question involved in this case WIS
whether = tender sufficient to pay the deht.
III.
made 10y defendant after the writ WAS m,J,.
ont. AID dtllver.d to an officer, but before
service ct the writ. no costs having been
rendered. was good tender. The Comfy
Court held that defendant was not ohli r,Id
o pay tor the writ or cost made upon it.
before service and ordered Judgment for
me defendant, which Judgment was affirm
t,l by his Court. Plaintiff pro Sc. VIM.
Livingston for defendant.
W. NJ. Smith vs.. Alden Smith THE
ease came to this Court upon a question of
the competency of certain testimony Thu
defendant introduced before the auditnr
4 witness who testified to a certain CONVEX
sttl"n with Alden Smith, deceased.
the plaintiff was then used as a witness tn !
contradict the testimony above mentioned
me County Court held that the testimony /
OF the plaintiff was not admissible. which
l"li"g WAS sustained by this Court and
IN