Bradford opinion. [volume] (Bradford, Vt.) 1874-1881, 1876-03-25

for IN injury alleged TO have been re-
ceiyed In consequence Of m alleged in
sufliciency OF u highway In said town.
Exceptions by deit, to the charge of the
court and to the admission of testimony.
Exceptions sustained. Judgment re-
vorsed and tho case remanded to county
court. Clarke and Hunton for plff.;
Rowell and Farnham for delft.
No. Is. Lauriston Il. Church Us. Geo.
Il. d Henry Bates. Exceptions by PHI.
mony. Exceptions sustained, judgment
reversed and case rcmanded to Co. CT.
for new trial Hebard and Farnham for
plF. Gleason and Rowcll for deft.
No. Il. Louisa 4. Priest as. Ros,DeN
q. Curtis. Exceptions by def. Con-
tinued Boyden and Hunton for pltf. /;
Perrin and Rowell for def.
No. 10. Sylvester Tillottson VS.. VIM.
Fellows, apt This was an action of
book account, and the Auditors report
was filed at the last June Term of coun-
ty court. The only controversy in the
case was on ono item in the Pits acct,
for $l4 worth of barley which the auditor
allowed to the plff. The report showed
that the defendant went to the plif. and
asked him if he had clean seed barley,
no India wheat in it and that the pill.
said II was clean, etc. that the def.
then bought the barley and sowed it,
and it turned out that there was large
quantity of kale seed in IL, which dam.
aged the def. to the amount of $50. Tho
auditor found that there was no warranty
of the barley, and the county court rem
dercd Judgment on the report for the
pllf. to which the def. excepted.
The supreme court held that the rep
reservations of the plfl. amounted to a
warranty of the barley and rversed the
Judgment of the court below, and rem
dercd judgment for the dett. for 1854
and his costs. White for plff. Hcbard
for delft.
No. 10. National Bank of Chelsea V. j.
ID. lsham. This was an action of general as
sumpsit founded on q note executed by the
deft, payable to one G, Is. Mahan at tho first
| National Bank of Burlington, and endorsed
by the said Mahan and one Elihu Hyde to tho
said Bank of Chelsea. The deft. pleaded the
general issue, and the trial was by jury. Tho
endorsement of the note was in blank and the
defendant insisted that the county court
for that reason should order a verdict for the
deft hut the court declined to do so, to which
the delft. excepted, and also to the court al
lowing certain questions to be put to wit
mes. The case was heard in tho Supreme
Court, and the court reserved their decision.
Hebard for plf. Ballard and Rowell for delft.
M. II. CALVIN Morse VS.. B. w. Bartholo-
cepts. Not decided With tie court. Wing
and Rowell for Orator. White and Clarke
for delft.
No. IL. James and Esther Battles VS.
Ephraim Thayer. Settled Hunton for Ora
tor. ROwel for deft.
M hot. ,I,,l, OF
Alnon Brainard. ct ais. Deft. excerpts. With
tine court. Heath and Wilson for pltf. Per-
rim and Rowel for dcfts.
No. 90 The main question was raisod on
auditors report. The auditor had allowed
several charges that accrued more than six
years prior to the decease of defts. and .judg-
lnent was rendered for the plf Exceptions
by dcft Judgment affirmed. Perrin for
plff. Boyden for deft.
NOEL. Henry C. McDuffee VS.. John Has
DO on this docket as the main qecstion in con
! trOversy has not been tried Farnham for
plf, Gambcl for delft.
No. 90 Bralcy g. Walworth, Admr's of b. |
w. bartholomew. vs., b. +. Dickinson apt.
This was an action of trespass against the
for taking single sleigh, the property of the
said Bartholomew. The defendant pleaded
in bar in justification that he was the cOllec-
tor OF said dist. and took said Sleigh for taxes
duly assessed against said bartholomew.
The plffs. admitted that all the proceedings
were legal as to the Grand List, and that said
Bartholomew was legally assessed in said
district, but contended that the takiag of the
sleigh was illegal because the record of the
warming of the annual school meeting at
which said tax was voted did not show that
the warning was dated, and the defendant of |
terred to show that the warning was duly
posted, which wss excluded. The county
court rendered Judgment for the plff Deft.
excepted. The Supreme Court ruled that the
date was no part of the record, and that the
posting OF the warming was part of the
record, and that the court erred in not allow
ing the deft. to prove the posting by parol.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
White and Rowell for plf. Hebard and
Clarke for deft
No. %. Il. c. Boynton apt, VS.. Charles o.
Standish Plf. excerpts Judgment reversed
aad Judgment rendered for plff. Perrin for
plf. ROwell for deft.
No. -. Margaret Stanton VS.. David Simp-
SON. This was an action to recover damages
OF deft. for having sold liquor unlawfully to
one Snow o. of Walden under the influence of
Judgment in Co. CT. for pltf. Exceptions by
deft. Judgment affirmed. Smith and Leslie
q Rogers for plf. Clarke for deft.
No. %. Town of Tnnbridge VS.. Richard
Smith ct ais, This was IN action of debt on
a collectors bond. Plea non est factum and
notice ofspeeial matter. The trial was by
court. The detendent objected to the grand
list because it was not sworn to by the listers,
and also objected TO the warrant attached to
the tax bill because it was not in the form
prescribed in the act Of 1868. The collector
had collected on the tax bill all but about
$272. and of the amount collected q large sum
had been applied on the former receipts by
direction of the collector. The county court s
rendered Judgment for the pltf. for the sum
due on tine receipts and interest from the time
fnxy hoo 1,1,,1
ceptions by deft. This court held that colec-
tor was not bound to enforce collection of tax
es Oh an illegal tax bill. and defts. were not
liable for the amount unsolicited, but liza.
BILE for tho amount collected, and for the
taxes misapplied if the Treasurer did not {
fact collected on this tax bill. Judgment re- {
versed and cause rcmanded. Hebard and \
Martin for plff Clarke for deft. I
No &c. Town OF Chelsea VS.. Town of Wash 7
ngton, This was an action against the def. |
Town OF Chelsea. Deft. demurred to the dec. +
aratiOn on the ground that the town was not
liable for the acts Of its officers. The demur
ger was sustained. Exceptions by pltf Judg- @
nent affirmed. Hebard and Clarke for plff.
White and ROwell for delft
No. e. l.. II. Brigham W. L, w. Avery, ct
us. PIT. excerpts Judgment reversed and II
ase remanded to county court for new trial a
lowell for plf. Plumley and Clarke for deft k
No. ~. David IL, Blood VS.. Gideon Fl.
leath. In Chaneery, Appeal by Orator.
decree affirmed and case remanded. Farm
am and Gambell for Orator. Clarke for deft. q
No. 90. Robert McCrilis VS., Amherst
'erkins. In Chancery. Decree for def. AZ =,
rlned and case rem nded. Farnham for Or Y
tor. Clarke for deft.
No, 30. Roswell G. Curtis VS.. Louisa A
riest: Petition for new trial. Continued.
DWELL for petitioner. HuntOn for petitionee
No. 81. Diana Butler VS.. Orange Bntler
etition by wife to sell her separate estate.
Ontinued, Farnham for petitioner. Harvey W