Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1876-11-01

ceptions 10 The court rulings In favor of tho ,d
mission Of certain dispositions, where super.c,,,.
ton was claimed to lie defectlve-of evidence. =,
the custom OF wool-buyers, in buying wool. ol,,,,
making examination Of hoeces before purcbasi,.
that admissions made by Bacon, plaintiffs agen,
only effected his credibility, and did not e.,al,.
lish the fact 10 he ~ the impeachng witnesso.
testified and the instructions to the iurv ON ohio,
minor points. Messrs. lelden and Ide of :,
Johnsbnry, for plaintiff NIessrr J. f. Lamson
Of Cabot, and Asa NJ. Dicsoy, Of st. Iohnsbnr,
for defendant
William J. Hopkins u.s. Town Of Elmore Tho
plaintiff, arcsidcnt Of Danylle alleges thatbega,,
H. H. Clark, constable Of Emore a iustice Wi,
against the property OIL j barnes that iudpmen,
having been secured and execution taken ont the
property sold by Clark, and the money received
therefor; that now Clark refuses 10 nav il over
which, by the statute, makes fillmore liable for
one hundred and fifty dollars, the sum obtained
at the constable's sale Of the property levied
with fifteen per cent interest The defendnn,
files a plea In the abatement, which makes m.
point that plaintiffs declaration summons Tia.
inhabitants Of the town Of Elmore. instead of
the town Of Elmorc,' that the Inhabitants of
the town Of fillmore" are not person, natural or
artificial that there is no such person known To
the law. Mr.. Elisha May, Of st. Johnsbury, Tor
the plaintiff Hon. Philip X. Gloed Of Morris
yille for defendant
Amazon Insurance Company rs. Lewis 49, FAR
ridgc.-Ihe defendant, a resident Of Dauville. VA
formerly an agent Of the plaintiff, and failed b.
pay over certain sums which he received in iil..
cary capacity for their benefit Suit having bees,
brought In the Caledonia county court, iude-
ment was rendered against defendant by agree.
ment, at the December term 1874, for four hun
dred and fifty dollars, without costs, which was
10 be paid in accordance with a certain bond
given by defendant and his attorney, Hon Hiss
n. Davis The defendant did not make the nav
ments and on written motion and affidavit u
the plaintiffs attorney, the court, Judge RIOS.
presiding in the December term, 1875, ordered
the case 10 be brought forward, the judgment va.
Gated and rendered new judgment in favor ~
plaintiff for four hundred and nifty dollars, aud
interest since December 49, 1874. without c,,.t.
and also ordered that defendant ought To be COO.
fined in close Jail. The defendant excepted io
these proceedings claiming that by the agreensr;
Of December 1874, and by the bonds, the coafs
had no power to bring the case forward ts
TO render Judgment granting certified exc
NuNNh AANN hAi'i9 HiNNNANu lNA pay ihtuNr Nk
installments within ninety days after Decemt.sr
10. 1874 that II such payments were not made,
execution should issue on the balance Of the
Judgment uupaid-be put Into the hands Of an Of.
iicer and Davis should have thirty days noci.c
thereof II Davis failed to have Partridge present
where an officer could arrest him within IL.
ninety days, then Davis should be holden h,r
the payment Of said judgment
Oliver 7, Chandler rs Amaziah H. Kicker
The orator, % resident Of Woodstock brought
bin in chancery in Caledonia county, claiming Ia
own an undivided third Of lot one hundred aua
eighty, in Gro,on, now occupied by Kicker Chan
collor Ross ordered decree to be entered graft
ing the prayer, and appointed commissioners b
make the partition. Defendant appealed 1t ap-
pears that in ISIS the orator bought the entire Ia
at q tax sale, and took deed running 70 himseif
aud two brothers, George and Samuel Chandler
The brothers held the land Jointly, and about issn
George and Samuel each decided one-thlrd q o.
to ;. g. Clark. Clark died a short time after
wards and IN the division Of his estate the entire
lot assigned 10 his daughter Phoebe John
Roberts, her guardian. and the daughters agent
decided two-thirds Of the lot 10 Joseph Kicker in
iSia and through him 1t came into the possession
/
claims that Chandler has allowed him to obtain
adverse possession Of the lot Orator pro o.,
Mr Joseph A. Wing for defendant
SATURDAY., october 2sth
The only case heard on Saturday was
VI. j. Billiard ct ais. vs. ]. T. Warren ct TX ct
ais. This is a phase Of the Bridgman and Warren
complication, which has excited the neighborhood
| Of liardwick for the last three years Mrs War
ren formerly carried on millinery store in Hard
wick, aud contracted eral debts to the orator.
On the fourteenth of Jny 1874, Way, Titus &
Company, Of ilardwiek, one Of the orators brought
a suit Of law against Mrs Warren, and attached
the goods In herstore. The defend ut was at that
time the wife Of l.. T. Warren. She claimed that
previous to this attachment she had made trans
fer Of her property to =. r. Brdgman, though
Bridgman hadn't taken possession Of the goods
Bndgman laid claim 10 the goods and Way Titus
& Company, with the other orators, brought the
present bill in which they allege that the transfer
| To Brdgman was fraudulent, and, in fact later
than this attachment and ask that a receiver may
be appointed and the assignment to Bndgman be
set aside, Hon. Philip X. Gleed for the orators
Messrs. Beldon and lde for the defendant.
MoNpAy, October 3oth, 1876
William J. Raney rs Town OF Sheffield ON
the thirteenth Of October 1879 AS the nlaiutis
claims. he sustained an injury on the highway In
| sheffield lie brought suit in the caledonia
county court. and at the trial last June Judge
Ross presidp- received DAMAGES Ilis notice
'"' ,'''' '',' INJURY "'e"'ieu ~ was N"'''
"A Wv" aS "1i'' anu wagon over .'e highway
"a '''ie'I '.'''inS nom 'onn rage mouse 70 NY
anu a, CERTAIN ui'use III Spelne'u on T"'u
,1"'' ..'"u D''"oeu imam A''eNeA "n'
-. ''',le'. > ulS no'Se p'oAe tniousu' '''
."' p'iH''" ,'su"eu ''"' ne passed overt inc foa"
''i''-N' anu Nuo" y "uu 'ls "'iuse very we"
'l'S'' wa "i"''''i n''ns' oo'"o'" INC "o"H''
~ 'u' Nv" ",''"o''7' "nu ap"u' twenty ous "o"
"o ","se 'ni"us" Nhou he uIohe 'i'a' '''
"''uEe "e o'"Ne ''rousn was pore ana 'os o''us'
''i' cue o'''' ou' " li'nN '''use, i"''nei ny
au '''1' 'n' No"s's VI "ii'"'n anu i'"s"
''''i'en "e'e ho'n ninety 70 ohe nuhuIeu 'o'''
apart u'"' 'ne highway surveyor heifu oi ''le nc
oiueh' iound the place where the plainuh claimed
poles from the bridge and nut on a covering Of
planls thing he had been intending to do for
some time before but had not, owing TO difficulty
in procuring plank The defendant claimed that
this notice was not sufficient in that it failed to
describe the place Of accident particularly enough
The court oyerruled the objection and defendant
exceuted The caae IL vith tudge Wheeler