Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1877-03-23

check, which he says the plaintiff told he
had or would destroy, and that the check
was cancelled, or should have been, in this
way. 1t appeared on the part of the plain
tiff that the check had been twice presented
at the bank for payment, and that the last
time IL remained in the bank from one TO
two months. The transaction about giving
the note was absolutely denied by plaintiff,
who said the check was given in settle
ment OF an account then existing between
the parties in reference to deal which they
had had in cattle. Verdict for def.
CbdS. 4. BuIlotO y. CLARK & Chapman Ma
chine Co. This was an action TO recover
back the contract price paid defendants for
a water wheel purchased of them by plain
tiff. 1t was claimed by plaintiff that the
wheel was not according TO the contract in
regard 10 its capacity or power. The de-
PENDANTS evidence tended to show that
there was not a sufficient head of water to
run said wheel, aud that the difficulty was
In the supply of water and the manner in
which II was conducted TO the wheel. YER
dict for plaintiff, SAG, and that plaintiff
pay the defendants S75 for use of wheel.
moses ~. OOHHoOH u hOct H. OONHoOH'
Action TO recover for the value Of an OK
sold defendant. 1t appeared that the OK
was purchased for the purpose of driving
to market. The plaintiff resided in ia
maica and understood that said defendant
wished to drive said OK TO Bellows Falls
from Jamaica, with other cattle. The
plaintiff represented, by the evidence, that
the OK was stiff or lame, but would drive
well enough. The OK was len with Mr..
Garfield of West Townshend, according TO
agreement. As soon as defendant saw said
OK he refused TO accept him, claiming that
he was not according to contract, and was
so lame that no could not drive him TO
Bellows Falls with other cattle. Defendant
returned said OK to Jamaica, and there
upon plaintiff brought suit and attached
the OK. Verdict for plaintiff, S97.
iSylvan,s G. Toner .. Daniel and VdrilIus
Cutting. This was an action OF assumpsit
TO an account for meat sold TO defendants
There was no dispute about the amount of
the account The defence proceeded upon
the ground that the defendants were not
partners. Verdict for plaintiff, S92O.s9.
Edwin Chase d Sons y. o. r. Post This
was an action to recover Tor one-hali Inc
amount offs promissory note of $1,000, Civ
en- to the Vermont Savings Bank in July,
1870. 1t appeared in evidence that this
note was given TO take up one of like
amount signed by the directors of the Mt.
Tom Paper Co., of IIolyoke, Mass. 1t fur
Their appeared that Welcome FELTON,, L.
Chase & Sons, and two others, who were
directors, signed the first note; that FELTON,
| and f. Chase & Sons had purchased the in-
terest of the other directors, or assumed
the liabilities of the company by being
| paid a certain amount by them. In July,
| 1870, the note in controversy was substi-
tuted for the one signed by the directors,
and the new note was signed by Welcome
FELTON,, +. Chase & Sons, and o. II. Post,
| surety. L. Chase & Sons paid the motto
and claimed that the defendant should pay
| one-halE Defendant claimed aud testified
| that he signed said note as surety for both
FELTON, and j.. Chase & Sons, and not as
surety for FELTON, alone. Verdict for de-
PENDANT,