Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1877-04-18
Washington County Court.

The court Is now trying the cases Of Lois Fisher
rs. Alonzo O. Fisher, and Alonzo G. Fisher rs. Lois
| Fisher-pettions for divorce-in which each party
alleges repeated acts OF adultery on the part Of the
other. As ususal in such cases, the court house
is filled with the scandal loving part OF the COM
munity, TO listen to the disgraceful details. This
is the last for trial and the county court will
be finished by tomorrow or Friday. The court
OF chancery will last few days more, NJ there are
several hearings.
| DIVORCES.
The following divorces have been granted
James H. Merrill from Stella l.. Merrill, both OF
| Waterbury, for adultery
Euphemia j. Perkins, Of Billerica, Mass, for
mery Of Danve, from Hiram II. Perkins, OF ler-
| in for wilful desertion and refusal to support
petitioner allowed to resume her maiden name
| OF Wallace.
All OF yesterday was taken up with the troubles
| OF jackson ]. Pratt and Emma c. Pratt, both OF
| Warren, each Of whom wish for divorce on
| the ground OF ntoerable severity, and the wife
charges in addition refusal to support on his part
Some thirty witnesses were examined. The par
ties have been fighting for nineteen years, but
can't stand 1t any longer
orrilla Foster u.s. William Foster, both OF Mid
dlesex, has been heard but no decision has yet
been rendered. The great bone Of contention is
the property the wife estimates him to be worth
some sixty thousand dollars, while he cannot APP
praise himself at more than eight thousand dol
lars It appears that he decided away most OF his
property just before the injunction served on
him. Each has children by previous marriage
and there are twins from the present cohabita-
ton, and she asks for their custody and suitable
alimony.
JOSEPH ?. TUCKER VS. JOHN MURPHY.
This case involved the payment of promsory
note for fifty-seven dollars, signed by the defend
ant, and dated August l, 1870, and payable May
I, 1871, with interest annually, to Josiah Seaver
or bearer. The defendant pleaded, first, that he
lacked one day Of being twenty years old at the
date Of the note, and, second that there was
total failure Of consideration for the note The
plaintiff claimed that even II defendant was an in
FAINT at the date of the note he had re-atirmed the
contract afterwards, and put in proof tending to
show a re-afiirmment. The entire controversy
arose out OF trade for two-horse threshing and
sawing-machne, which the plaintiff a resident OF
Warren, and the defendant, a resident of Waits
field, made in the summer 1870, when the plain
tiff, by another trade with Seaver came into the
possession Of this note, which had plainly been
given Seaver by defendant, for one-horse thresh-
ing-machne. This one-horse threshing-
came into plaintiffs possession as part payment
for the two-horse machine, and was re-.od to
Seaver for the defendants note The transac-
tons were a good deal mixed There were liens
on both machines at the time they were traded
round, and the defendants two-horse machine
was taken away from him after while, on &C
count Of the lien. The defendant claimed that
plaintiff sold him, not only the machine, but the
good will " of the farmers round about; and
that the plaintiff bought new machine and ran
against him. notwithstanding The defendant
was undoubtedly cheated by the plaintiff, but
that didn't seem to be any defence to the note
which grew out Of another and separate transac-
ton with Seaver and the court found that he had
re-atiirmed the contract, II he was not Of age
when the note was executed, by trading the one
horse machine away afterwards and taking pay
for it. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount
OF the note and interest. Exceptions by defendant
Messrs George NJ Fisk and Hiram Carleton for
the plaintiff Messrs Charles II Heath and T.. A.
Heath and Homer W. IIeaton for defendant