Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1877-09-26

| NNON
! II Dutton, adjoining his dwelling house
on the 18th of October 1875, at Warren
These parties with the exception of Mary
J, Kendall were indicted last fall for the
same offence. At hearing on Monday
evening, Mills furnished bail for five hun
dred dollars and each of the others fol
two hundred and fifty dollars. Mary Kin
dali is also indicted for keeping house
of ill-fame.
In the case of Sarah A. Thayer VS..
Thomas T. Prentis for breach of promise,
mention of which was made in last week S
report, the parties have agreed that the
plaintiff is sick and whether, or not, there
will be a trial during the present term will
depend upon the condition of her health at
the close of the criminal docket. The de-
PENDANT is very anxious for an immediate
trial; but the plaintiffs health has failed
her lust at the wrong time for him.
William A. Boutele VS.. Westminster
Fire Insurance Company.
This case, which was on trial at the time
of the last issue Of this paper, was continu-
ed through the week. The parties were
William A. Boutele of this village and the
Westchester Fire Insurance Company of
| New York, and the circumstances which
led to the trial were mentioned in the last
issue. The defendant claimed that the pol
lev was rendered void for four reasons
First, because the plaintiff deceived the
agent of the company, Mr.. A. q. Brown,
when the property was insured, as to the
value of the hulless oats and as to the
Ownership of them, the defendant claiming
that DR.. ]. B. Woodward of this village and
one d. w. Ramsdell, of Norway Oats "
fame, were partners in the business, the
former by virtue Of his signing a note for
$1,000 at the Waterbury bank with Mr..
Boutelle and receiving as consideration a
quarter interest in the business, and Mr..
Ramsdell receiving quarter interest for
services rendered in the sale of the oats ;
second, that Mr. Boutelle in his statement
of loss knowingly greatly overestimated
to the company the amount of oats in the
store house at the time of the fire, this
overestimate, as claimed by tie defendant,
being about thousand bushels or about Il
quarter of the whole amount of grain
claimed; Third, that the plaintiff did not
exert himself to save the property at the
time of the fire, but before it was properly
under control went to his house and to bed,
whence Mr.. Brown had great difficulty in
inducing him to return, and, that after the
fire, he didn't take proper pains to sell
what was saved at fair price; fourth, that
the plaintiff found that the oats would not
sell and, thinking the insurance money of
more value to him than the grain, set fire
to his own buildings.
The plaintiff claimed that he did not de-
ceive the agent, that in making up his
statement of loss there may have been
small discrepancy, not intentional on his
part. and not exceeding, at the most. five
hundred bushels, that he did take proper
precautions at the fire and that he did not
set fire to his buildings and had no induce
ment to do so us the oats were much more
valuable to him than the insurance money
and he was buying all he could obtain at
live dollars Il buShel.
There were many other points which
came up but these were the principal ones
on which the defense relied.
Judge Redficld charged the jury Mon
day morning, and in the afternoon they
returned verdict of $l628 and costs for
the plaintiff. The oats were insured
originally for $1O,000-$2, 800 in each of
the following companies; the Globe of
Chicago, the Kansas Of Leavenworth, Kan
sas, the Planters of Memphis, Tenn, and
tins defendant company. The Globe and
Kansas have since gone into bankruptcy.
Kumor has it that we are to have some
local cases Qor SANDER, perhaps growing
out OF this trial, but it is to be hoped thai
the community at large will bear up under
them with patience and resignation.
The time of the court since Monday
morning has been wasted in petty cases.
which some justices of the peace would
hardly be willing to try.
James w. Brown VS.. II. Ii. Meader
ms was an action brought by j. w,
Brown of Calais against Ii. Ii. Meader of
montpelier to recover the value of wear
ing heller which the defendant attached
while he was deputy sheriff with IL writ in
favor OF David and Darius Hawkins
against their uncle, Lisdale Hawkins.
The plaintiff claimed that the calf was
ais property, and the defendant ALLEGED
mat he allowed it 10 be attached without
of his ownership. Verdict for
Ihe plaintiff to recover ten dollars and firtv
cents and costs. Counsel for the plninnf
Durant and Heath; for the defendant Pr,
kin and Livingston. ~
~ isaac Is Davis VS., Noah Vigeant. This
was repleVln suit for a sorrel colt. II
seemed that the plaintiff, an old man 70.
SUING IN Calais, owned farm in Wood
oury which was sold to the defendants
prothers, and the horse and some o,hor
personal property was turned in az adJ;
,lonal security for the ten first notes The
lelendants not being to meet the first noto
surrendered the farm. and the nlainI;8
surrendered all the notes. Previous 70 10
settlement he had taken the horse in t tto
=, eP!eVin SUIT The defendants claimed
nat the mutual surrender of the na'oa
'nu farm operated as IA discharge of tbo
}orsonal security likewise. The COMFY
hhought so' too, and taking the case FROM
ne jury gave u verdict for the dpfaUd
mus, Counsel for the plaintiff Heath ,o am5
n Al
md Durant. ''''i' Lamson
r.. James Carpenter VS., Stebbins J. Asb,ou
ne parties reside in Waitsfield IN ,So
Pring OF 1875 the plaintiff owned , ho ,le
Shlch was kicker, etc, valued NV worse tS'
most sanguine" ut about forty d ~ .ne
i ii snapped her to the defendSn t0t for
lGa, spawned beast, which he had dr rE. a
n MS meat cart, with warranty 1 tb r..t ven
1b was sound, as the plaintiff avo une a
ne defendant does not exactly saw th %'e[s.
es; but denies this, and saws tb ,ala' me ne t
rade was fair one, and that each 'n 1a, tne g
perry to take all the advantage he ~ oa,i at
! tne other. The plaintiff is ''v wi loud +
o owe to trust his case to a inrv WING III
GERS est Which side will come only s ol ms
est Is at present unknown. Co Cow second L
le plaintiff; E. A. Heath C6sr isel Tor E : :
leat1 and f V. Randall; for th@ des H.
IT. IT., ohurtleff and W. P Dillingham; CHI n9i'nd' p
,e dre da gIiSna jury will probably finish
'''' "0iloera'lons to-day, HniSn