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

March Term, 1870.
Hon. JOHN PIERPoNT, Chief Judge.
Hon. jams BARRETT, } ...,.,,
Hon. JONATHAN Ross, '""9es'
Term commenced Tuesday March Z.
No. /. LamOille Valley r. r. Co. v
MissisQMoi r. r. ct ais. This Is a peti
ton In relation to the crossing of the tw,
roads above named. Continued. Brig
ham 4 Waterman, for petitioners.
No, 2, State v. John @. Carleton. In
dictment for manslaughter. Tried by .u
~ In June, 1873. Exceptions by respOn
dent to tho admission of statement
by Al0nzo w. Davis charging tho re
spon dent with having shot him. Coun
sci for the State claimed the statement
should be admitted as part of the &c.
gestdc. and 1t was SO admitted Their,
was also exceptions to tho charge. Tn,
opinion was delivered by Royce. Elk
ceptions sustained, verdict set aside ant
case remanded to county court for new
trial. States Attorney and R0well TO
State; Farnham, Clarke and Hebard TO
respondent.
No. 8. John c.. Carlton v. State. Peti
ton for q new trial in the above case
This case was not heard as No. 2 dispos
ed of it. Same counsel.
No. 4. N. l.. Boyden, Adna,A of job,
MontgOm erys Estate v. J.Wiison ct ais
This was an action of trespass, brought
by Montgomery in his lifetime, for the
taking Of Is head of cattle. The case
showed that the defendent made out siA
writs in 1870 against the plaintiff Mont
gomery and put them into an officers
hands to serve and return. The dcfen
dents went with the officer into the Town
of Braintree, and near the dwelling O
the plaintiff Montgomery for the purpose
of getting said cattle, but learned before
they reached plaintiff s house that sale
cattle were not at plaintiffs place in sale
Braintree, and defendants requested thu
officer to send them to look up the cattle
which the officer did. The defendants
started for said cattle, leaving the officer
to attach certain other property of plain
tiff's at his house. The defendants pro-
ceeded some nine miles into the Town o.
Rochester and found the said cattle and
drove them to West Randolph where the
officer resided. The next morning the
officer saw the cattle. The officer made
his return that he attached the cattle in
Rochester at the time defendants found
them. Judgments were obtained on the
several writs on which said cattle were
attached, executions issued and the of
ficer attached and sold said cattle in SAID
Rochester. The County Court found that
the officer had no right to send defen.
dants to look up the cattle and drive them
in TO him, and if he attached them at all
it was on the next day after the defen'
dants drove them as aforesaid and in
Randolph. The County Court found the
value Of the cattle $208, and also found
that the value Of the cattle less wha
they sold for on the execution $l43.91
and also found that for the driving OF
the cattle by defts. till officer saw them
the defts. were liable in $40 damages
and rendered judgment for that sum in
any event, and a pro forma judgment
for the value of the cattle $20S. Excep-
tons by defts.
Sup. Ct. hold that the defts. are liable
in $40 damages before the officer took
the cattle, and the officer liable for any
Irregularities after he took possession
of them. Boyden and Denison for plff
Perrin, Rowell and Wilson for defts.
No, 5. EManan 7. Lille ct ais Us,
Elisha Lille ct ais. This was bill in
chancery with an injunction against
defts. cutting and selling wood. The
case showed that def. Elisha Lille oc-
cupied farm of about $50 acres of land
in Randolph that was willed to him and
during his natural life and at his decease
it was to be divided between his chill
dren and wife equally. 1t appeared that
there were about sixty acres of wood
land on the farm, and Elisha Lille had
occupied the land for twenty years or
more, and had cut each year more wood
than he needed and sold ten cords or
more, that he had cut the wood pru-
IDENTIFY and had carried on the farm 80
that it was really worth more than when
it came into his hands; but the children
complained of his selling any wood and
secured the injunction. The Chancellor
found that the def. had sold more wood
than he had a right to and continued the
injunction. Supreme Court reversed
the decision and remanded the case with
the order that the bill be dismissed with
costs. Perrin for Orators; Boyden for
defts.
No. 6. Vim. Gabrielle ct ais Us. r.
T. Dubois ct ais. This was a petition
in chancery to ascertain the rights of the
respective parties in regard to water.
The main question was in regard to
the construction of certain reservation
in lease. The Orators claim was I'M
der the lease and the defts. claim was
under and by virtue of the reservation.
The reservation was as follows: "The
said Sparhawk hereby reserves to him
self, his heirs and assigns, the first right
to use so much water Us will be sutfi-
cient for his own use, and Dea. John
Smith, as may be conveyed, as now,
from said spring to his dwelling house
in a three-fourths of an inch pipe"
The testimony showed that at the time
Of this reservation the water run in an
open "a inch pipe at Sparhawk's. The
Orators claimed that defts. should have
only so much water as was actually
necessary for the two places named in
he reservation. The defts claimed that
hey were entitled to full 3-4 inch pipe
If water Just as 1t run at the time the
ease was given.
Decree Of the Chancellor for the defts.
Decree affirmed. Perrin and Rowell for
Denison and Boyden for defts.
No. T. Ephraim Thayer as. Jacob
Spear. Exceptions by def. Enjoined
nd continued. Perrin and Rowell for
'lff Boyden and Heath for def.
No. 8. Joseph atkinson Is. Richard
Patterson. This is the famous Newbury
and suit. Exceptions by the def. A
notion was made for continuance by
he def. on the ground that the excep-
ous had been lately amended, and were
ct imperfect. The motion was over
uled and the case tried. No decision
rs rendered by the Sup. Ct. and the
ase is still with the court. Leslie &
.ogers and Rowell for plff. Gambell
nd Clarke for deft.