Bradford opinion. [volume] (Bradford, Vt.) 1874-1881, 1877-06-23
ORANGE COUNTY COURT.


June Term, Is,s.
Hon, II, II. Powers, Chief Judge.
Hon, HARVEY DopGE. associate
Hon, ZENAs NJ, UPdAM, Judges.
l.. q, HINcKLEY. Clerk.
JOHN BAILEY. JR., Sheriff.
ID, A. ROGERS. State's Attorney,
JoHN ii, MIMMs, Reporter.
THURSDAY, June II.
No. 80 Ira II. Melendy v. I0wn OF
Bradford. This case was given ia
the Jury this afternoon after having
been on trial since last Thursday
The Jury do not agree during the
day. The trial has been one OF i'm.
portance to the parties and Of inter
est to the public, judging from the
large numbers present every day.
The plaintiff and his counsel have
undoubtedly come to the conclu'
sion before this time that suits
against towns for injuries received
on highways are not, as u matter OF
course, successful. The testimony
on the part of the plff., as in the
former trial, tended to show that
the highway was insufficient and
out of repair, from a stump being
slid into the highway known as
R0well Brook Road, and that the
PHI. without negligence on his part
drove against the stump and receiv
ed injuries that his physicians testi'
fy are permanent that he has al
together lost the use of his lower
limbs, that he cannot walk nor
stand and has no sensation in his
legs or feet. The testimony of the
town tended to show that the stump
was not in the travelled track of the
highway, that Melendy was care.
less when he drove upon it and that
his injuries are not nearly as severe
us he claims. The testimony on he.
half of the town tended to show
that he could move his legs and
had sensation in them. In fact sew.
eral witnesses swOre to having seen
him move his feet, toes and legs.
The case was thoroughly tried on
both sides and every essential point
contested with great stubborness.
Judge Powers spoke of the trial as
managed by the counsel for both
parties in very high terms.
No. SO, 1omn Of Tunbridge v.
Richard Smith and others. This is
a suit by the town against Smith,
former constable of Tunbridge, and
others, sisners of his bonds, to re-
cover what the town claims to he
their due of taxes collected and not
paid over. Detts. claim that more
than the amount of alleged defci-
ency Oh the bond in suit has been
paid over by Smith, but that the
town treasurer without author ity
and contrary to the instructions Of
Smith applied the amount in salts.
faction of other bonds and on other
tax bills. The trial occupies the
day.
FRIDAY, June Is.
This morning the jury in Melen-
dy V. Bradford come into court and
asked for further instructions on the
question of the negligence of plff.
at the time of the accident. After
further instructions by the Court
they retired for further deliberation.
No. 5G, Tmbridge v. Smith ct ais.
The court suggests that, as this case
and two others upon constable's
bonds, between the same or some
of the same parties are upon the
docket to be tried, and that posi-
bly,, if tried repeatedly by jury,
there might be some injustice in the
application of the funds upon the
different tax bills Oh bonds, that it
would be more equitable for all par
ties to have all three of the cases
referred to some capable men to try
and report the facts to the court,
and recommended Asahel Peck as
referee. Hebard and ROwell for
the pltf. Clarke and Gambell for
defts.
at little past II o'clock the ju-
ry in Melendy V. Bradford come into
court disagreed and, as the foreman
declared there was no hope of agree.
ment, they were discharged. 1t is
that they found the road
but disagreed on the
question of the negligence of the
plff. 1t is also said, but Oh what
authority we cannot state, that on
the latter question they stood 4.for
Melendy and eight for the town.
AS the sudden disposal of No.
56 took everybody by surprise, no
other case was ready for trial, and
the court took a recess till Monday
mt o'clock p. NJ.
MONDAY, June 49,
The States attorney had assign
ed several State cases for trial to.
day, and No. 2G3 State v. Joseph W.
was first taken up. This
was an indictment in five counts for
setting fire to and burning several
To this Indictment the
respondent demurred and the ques.
ton was heard this afternoon. ROg.
ers, as States atty. and ROwell for
jhe prosecution; Gambell, Pitkin,
Huse & Lord for respondent. De.
nurrer overruled and indictment
declared to be sufficient. RespOn-
lent then moved for a continuance
which is refused.
TUESDAY, June 10.
No. 263, State v. Smalley goes to
rial to-day.
THE 4Sth annual meeting of the
American Institute of Instruction
will he held in MOntnelier Lnlv 10