Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1877-12-19
LamOllle County Court.
HON II. H. POWERS, Presiding Judge.
Hon, J. W. STILES, Aesist,nt T,,3ass
HON. J. II. PAGE, AS"is'u"' '"'V'''
". H. II. KENFIELD, Clerk,
Il, B SHERwIN. Sheriff.
j. W. THORPE. States A ttOTneV.
II MtsFarg Dana.ga,.

j ". Thorpe: States ttorneV.
j. IL. MIMMs, Reporter.
The December Term of the Lamoille
County Court WAS opened on the 4th inst,
at 10 o'clock A. NJ, with prayer by Rev.
0. S. Basford. On the call of the Grand
Jury the following named gentlemen
answered to their names, viz:
Norman Cheney, Belvidere; B. F.
Wiley, Harlow Wires. Cambridge william
Scott, Eden; A. NJ. Kelley, Gilmore; r
S. Page, G. NJ. Sherwin, Hyde Park
Ahira Leach, Thomas Wilson, johnson
Geo w. Gates, |. N. Lebaron, Geo. Story,
Morristown; Joshua Luce, b. o. Shaw,
Stowe. David IL. Watkins, Waterbury
Alger Jones, Wolcott. j. G. French OF
Cambridge and VIM. Morrill, of Stowe
not answering to the call they were ex-
cu>ed and their places filled by Hon. A.
b. Smith and Almon Bourlman, Esq, OF
Morristown. Talisman.
The Petit Jurors answering to their
names, were the following, viz:
Oliver II. Potter, Belvidere; Henry E.
FuIingtun, NJ. j. Morgan, II. w. Ray
more. j. NJ. Stafford, o. G. Wcstman,
Cambridge; E. NJ, Sanborn, Eden; n. I.
Churchill, Francis Merritt, Gilmore; l.. S.
Griswold, w. S Page, Z. A. Smalley, c,
b. Wilcox, Hyde Park; r. q. Cristy,
james Holmes, Fletcher Jones, II. W,
Newton, johnson; G. f. Bingham, L. M.
Edwards, Chas. A Rich, A. j. Sherwood,
A. ID. Thomas, Morristown; Reuben
Alger, Asa P Smith, Stowe; G. E Bragg,
S. r.. Manchester, Waterville; Geo. G.
Davis, NJ. d. Scott, Newell Whitney,
Wolcott.
The charge to the Grand Jury was in
Judge Powers usual clear and compre.
hensive style, after which the Court ap.
pointed r. s. Page. Esq, Foreman.
Upon the call Of the docket twenty-onC
civil(?) causes and thirteen state causes
were "set " FOR trial by jury, and about as
many more were "set to the court" Four
teen state eases, of a peculiar and uniform
character, having their locus in quo in the
town of Stowe, were, upon the statement
to the court by the states attorney that the
state did not have any evidence upor
which the state would be warranted tc
proceed to trial. ordered mot to bt
brought forward" and thus endeth tina
chapter of crime.
The first jury trial was in the case, 10
seph Hutchins, admir- of Rhoda Reming
tons estate VS., w, IL, IL, Bingham. Th
was an action of general assumpsit l
was instituted by the plaintiff in his capac
ity us administrator of the estate of Rhod
Remington, to recover the sum of abou
four hundred dollars, claimed to be du
from defendant to said estate for none,
loaned by said intestate to the defendant
for which the defendant had given hi
, promissory note. 1t appeared that 70
: about one and one-half year prior to Nov
! 18th, 1872, the ntestate had been livin;
' with one VIM. NJ. Small in Morrstown
At that time by her request said Sinai
carried her to the residence of one j. j
, Mix in huntington, where she was take
, sick and died on the 9th day of December
, 1872; that on her way to Huntington sh
e called on the defendant, who then paid he
I fifty dollars, which was endorsed on sal
note; that day or two after her deceast
5 said Small, who was one of the larges
= creditors of the estate, called on the de
l., PENDANT, at his residence in Stowe, appriSe
+ him of the death of the intestate, and Il
o the same time notified him that he, Small
= was II creditor. and that the defendant mu,
: not pay to any one The amount due on hi
note to the ntestate, until an adminlstra
c tor had been appointed; that in january
!, 1878, sand Mix and one Campbell Reming
c ton, IL son OF the inteState, came to see til
d defendant at Stowe; that said Mix prt
l. scented him the note and said the intestat
y had given it to him, and that he was
q settle itl her debts, and demanded pay
II ment of the note, and that thereupon I'll
Is defendant paid him the amount of til
" note, and took it up. Tine plaintiff CLAIM
a ed that us it appeared the note once b
e lungcd to the inlGslale, and that there WI
1t n, proper evidence that she had ever law
e fully disposed of it, and that the deiendal
)t had been seasonpby notified not to p;
The note to any one except the admnistr
tor Of the estate, The plaintiff Was enullt
to recover the amount OF the note. 1t al
II prared that the note WAS II nG9otlab
ID prom,sory note, payable to b arer, III
H., liat the defendant acted in good faith
Of it, payment. Verdict for defendant
nj recover his costs,
III his case was tried 10y court ut tue d
le cembrr term, 1873, when judgment W
al rendered for the defendant, anu the Gu
It carried to the Supreme Court upon exec
be tons by the plaintiff, and at the Augu
term, 1876, of the Supreme Court, l.
Judgment of the county court was reVer
Ell, for error in admitting the testimony
rs the defendant, and cause remanded
Ii new trial, and has again resulted in
III Judgment for the defendant. X. +. Parkt
of Brigham & Waterman for the plaintiff;
he X. GIccd for the defendant.
in Joseph Ilinckley VS.. y. e. Raymor
OF Iapl't. This was an action OF trcSpass
of the taking of horse. 1t appeared
ey evidence that the defendant WAS first co
II stable of the town of Cambridge in 1877
ey and in that capacity received an exec
lal ton issued by IL justice of the peace
said town of Cambridge, to satisfy whic
ST he levied upon the horse in questic
which was duly advertised, and on the
day of May, 1876 WAS sold at public au
on ton to satisfy said execution; that belo
ess and ut the time of the sale the plant
'as notified the defendant that said horse |
us longed to his wife, aud showed the defer
on ant written document TO subStantiate
NJ statements, aud further that said ho
me was kept for family use, and in any eve
10 was exempt from attachment, 1t appe
'u- ed further that in the suit against ST
us Hinckley, in which said execution was
IT. sued, that the plaintiff in sad suit
IN obtained IL judgment against said llinC
lev, but that said suit had been contnr
seJeral times as TO trustees in said 81
and at the time of the issue of said exc
has ton, the trustee matter had not been
will termined, but was then pending. l
1g. plaintiff claimed that under the facts
IA above set forth, said execution was p
'rt, malurely issued, and before any judgm
he had been perfected, and hence, that
the plaintiff was entitled to verdict in
gh case, and asked the court to so rule. ]
ice court, irs view Of the facts as prov
ing directed the jury TO return verdict
lay the plaintiff for such sum AS they tot
md the value of the horse to be. Evidel
an was offered on both sides in show
Is, value of the horse, and the jury al
OF mature deliberaton returned IL verl
for the plaintiff for 1928, damag
per Brigham u Waterman for the plant
j. j. Monahan and Nj. o. Heath for