Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1876-03-15
Orange County Supreme Court.
Hon. JonS PiERroNr, Chicf Jadge.
Hon. JAMES BARNETT,
Hon. HOMER T. ROYCE assistant JUigc''
Hon JONATHAN Ross, }

entered on the docket upon the call Of which sew
eral were continued, settled and otherwise dis
posed Of, without hearing The following cases
were heard ON exceptions;
State u.s. John C. Carlton. This was prose
cution for granddaughter in shooting one Alonzo
W. Davis, In vershire, June 9Th, 1872 50 that he
died June 9Th. The atfmy occurred on q discon-
tinued highway which led from the main road
between Chelsea and Vershlre to the respondents
premises, and on the land Of the respondent,
Winthrop Davis, the father Of the deceased, being
present 1t appeared that the Daviscs had been in
the habit Of going across Cartons land for some
length of time, It being saving in travel 10 them
II also appeared tina, they and the respondent
were not upon good terms, and that he had for
hidden their crossing upon his land previous to
this. on tho morning OF the 9th Of June the pa-
vises passed down from their home across Carl
tons land, through the discontinued highway
On their return some hours later, when they
reached the bars across the end Of the discontinued
highway and were about TO enter Cartons land
the elder Davis said to his SON. " Let us 60 mp
around" The son replied, No, | am going
across" The evidence Of Winthrop Davis, on the
part of the prosecution tended to show that before
reaching the bars they heard pistol shot, and
soon after another, and saw their dog jump over
the wall near with yolp that they saw the re-
spondent advancing from rock about ten rods
away, where he had been drilling with a pistol
in one hand, and a stick In the other. The Da-
vises had now reached the bars and stepping
over, putthcm up behind them. That Carlton adj
vanced toward Aonzo W and before reaching him
changed the pistol from his right hand to his left
taking the stick In his right hand, the pistol point
ing towards Davis when he came near enough to
| Davis he struck him with the stick that inme-
dately Alonzo turned to his father, and said, He
has shot me- they then clnched, and fell,
Carlton falling on his back The witness tes-
tilted that he did not hear the third shot at ALL nor
sec tho flash nor smoke Of the pistol. Soon after
this Truman johnson, wholyed near, having heard
pistol shots, came to where they were, and assisted
Alonzo to his johnson 81 house
The defence did not deny that Davis came to his
death by the pistol but claimed that It was acct
dentally discharged after they commenced scuf
fling The witness Winthrop Davis also testified
that he went from the scene OF the ARRAY to John
| sons house in about two minutes, and upon arriv-
ing there the deceased made this statement to him,
lie shot me before touched him" This respond
ents counsel objected to, but the court allowed II
as part Of the res geside, to which exception was
taken; exceptions were taken to the charge Of the
court in several particulars Exceptions sustained,
verdict set aside and new trial granted. State
attorney for state Ilebard, ramlam Clarke, for
respondent.
~ /. Boyden, Administrator Of john Mont
gomery's estate rs. j. j. Wilson ct dls.-This was
an action Of trespass and troyer for taking and
converting thirteen head Of yearling cattle II
appeared that on the 9th day OF September, 1870
the defendants, Wilson and Perrin, placed in
the hands Of one Bass, deputy sheriff for Orange
county, four writs Of attachment against Mont
gomery, the plaintiff in this suit. That the sher-
III, with the writ in his possession, accompanied
by the defendants, Wilson and Perrin who wer,
the attorneys in the suits proceeded to BH,intrce
where Montgomery resided, for the purpose o
attaching his property but upon arriving nea
his house. found that the cattle had been driver
to Rochester. The sheriff thereupon directed
Wilson and Perrin to 90 there and get them
They then went tn Rochester, in Windsor county
seven to nine miles from where they left the Of
fcer, found the cattle, and drove them 70 Brain.
tree depot, where they procured the detendan
IIaseltou TO drive them to West Randolph tn,
attorneys had no authority, except the direction
given them by the sheriff. The next morning
September 9Th the sheriff attached the cattle Oh
the writs but making his return on the writ. a
having been attached at Rochester The Office
t had never seen the cattle until he attached them
4 September 9Th. The cattle were afterwards nd
vertised by posting notices in Rochester, and so
pursuant TO statute provided the cattle coul'
be legally advertised aud sold in the town Of Roeh
ester. 1t appeared that the cattle were never il
the possession of the officer in the town Of Roch
ester, until driven there the day they were sold
r Two points made by defendants; fret tina
a the sheriff had the right to direct defendants t
90 after and get the cattle second, II he had not
the attachment and sale in the manner the fact
1 herein stated show go In mitigation Of damages
I Judgment rendered for plaintiff, for two hun
! bred and eight dollars Judgment for forty dol
lars reversed and judgn ent for plaintiff. Boydei
+ and Denison for plaintiff Perrin Rowell and vii
0 son, for defend n,s
Samuel Kinball, administrator, rs John an,
A Merrill T. Sargent-Action Of assumpsit ON prom
issory note payable to plaintiffs intestate or OF
I der, and signed by defendants. The defence wa
statute of limitations. The execution and dev
cry of the note was conceded. The plaintiff
, proved by testimony Of the widow Of Robert Sar
August 10, 1870, was in her handwriting, and tina
she made 1t by her husband direction in his life
time; that the five dollars was paid by one Set
Sargent son Of defendant John Sargent Tn
plaintiff testified that after his appointment as ad
mnstrator, he called on the defendants to pay o
, the note that Merrill Sargent (who was surety o.
! the note for john told him that Seth Sargent ha
paid five dollars on the note to keep It from out
having; that he also showed note TO John Sar
, gent, who said the endorsements were all right
To this testimony Of administrator defendant Oh
jected, but objection was overruled and exception
I taken Judgment was rendered against both de
PENDANTS. Judgment reversed as to NJ T. SaI
h gent and judgment rendered for him for hi
costs, affirmed as to other defendant White 70
plaintiff EIebard for defendants
Eliza j. Whitney rs Town of Sharon. Actio
, to recover damages alleged to have been receiye
b by reason Of the nsui.iciency Of the highway
T short distance below Sharon village The acci
4 dent occurred Sunday, the 18th day of October
a 1872 1t appeared that George +, Hazen. Of Hart
4 ford, had made bargain with the plaintiff +
work for him in his family at the time OF his wife
i confinement which was expected in the course O
few weeks. She was u go on receiving noiic
h from Mr.. Ilazen On the 18th Of October MI
$ IIazen was expecting threshers at his place, an
i not having sufficient help in the house, concludes
to send after Miss Whitney on the Saturday pre-
eeding, and for this purpose procured one VIM. b
Porter to go to Tunbridge for her lie drove +
her house, arriving Saturday evening, and tn
next morning they started for Hartford On tn
= way down, by the insufflcency OF the highway
the plaintiff was preciptated down n steep bank
into White River She afterwards went to n hous
near by and procuring more clothing, went to he
: sisters house in Hartford, distance Of min
miles, the same evening. The jury returned
verdict for plaintiff, Four exceptions were save
in the court below: First to the ruling of tn
court, that il was question for the jury whethe
the journey was one Of necessity or charity; sec
ond, to the charge to the jury TO plaintiff pru
! dence in riding to her sisters house the eyenin
9 OF the accident; third, To the charge Of the coul
as to plaintiffs neglect in calling to her aid actiy
and vigorous medical treatment; fourth, to III
b admission Of the testimony OF Dr. Allen, as to IN
( question he asked the plaintiff and her answe
. thereto, in his examination of her as to how lon
+ she had worn the shoe she was then wearing o
4 the right foot Judgment reversed, and cause r,
manded on the ground that the charge Of the coui
= was erroneous as effecting damages. CIV. Clark
o and A. y. Hunton for plaintiff j. W Rowell an
d r. Farnham for defendant
d Probate Court, Randolph District, rs. Almo