Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1878-11-27
Washington Conntr Court.
Hon. TIMO. P. REDFIELD, Chief Judge, Presiding
Hon. WILLARD :. MARTIN, Assistant Judge.
Hon. PHILANDER RIFORD. Assistant Judge.
MELVILLE T.. SMILE, Clerk.
FRANK PLUMLEY. States Attorney
JoHN l.. FUTILE, sheriff.


JoHN L. FUTILE, sheriff.
HENRY ovIATT, Reporter.
The court came together November 18th
to hear the cases which had been assigned
to the court.
The first case for trial was Joseph &.
Rice VS.. Luke Parish; james n. johnson
for plaintiff, c. w. Clarke for defendant
The plaintiff is a resident of Ncrthiield
and the defendant Parish Il deputy sheriff
in Randolph. 1t appeared in evidence
that in the spring of 1876 the plaintiff
took the contract to build the new graded
school building in Mortified, and made a
bargain with Daniel Tarbell, now of
Granville, to get out the large lumber.
The plaintiff and Tarbell both testify that
the pair Of oxen, which have formed the
bone of contention in this case, were lent
TO Tarbell by the plaintiff to use in draw
ing out the lumber from the mountain TO
the mill. One Hazen Campbell of Wash
ington. rs it appeared, held an execution
of $4,000 against Tarbell, and about the
middle of June. 1876, in the company of
the defendant Parish, who acted as sheriff,
appeared on the premises of Tarbcll and
attached, among other things, these oxen
us Tarbell's property. The plaintiff
brought suit to recover the value of these
oxen, claiming them as his property
What added TO the many other complica-
tions of the case was, that one of the oxen
has died since the attachment. On this
account the defendant claimed that even if
the plaintiff recovered it could only be for
the value of one OK. The court rendered
verdict for the plaintiff to recover 500
and interest from June, 1876.
The next case was Orson Kimball VS..
E. w. Hopkins; S. G. Shurtleff and o l.
IIoyt for plaintiff, j. p. Lamson for de-
PENDANT. This was n Cabot case, and in
the spring of 1875, the defendant rented IL
farm of the plaintiff, the plaintiff to retain
lien on the crops until the rent was
paid. The defendant moved of at the
end of the year, and the plaintiff brings
suit to recover the value of certain hay
and oats and other things. The defence
was that the defendant left as much hay
as he found there, and that the plaintiff
had given him permission to sell the oats
if he could. Judgment was rendered toI
the plaintiff to recover $685. and interest
from March LIST, 1876.
The next case was Hiram Nj. Bruce VS.
. Henry u. all anu III III uSC No
IIoraiio Templeton, joined; Gleason &
Field for plaintiff, and Heath " Carleton
and S g. Shurtleif for defendants. 1t APP
pcarcd that in 1874 the defendants, TEN
pleton and Vail, kept a store in Worcester
and the plaintiff was Interested with hi:
brother, William Bruce, Jr,, and Chester
Ladd in saw mill operations. Ladd ant
the two Bruces, Individually and together
owe the firm of Templeton q Vail be
tween Sl400 and $500. The defendants
wished to raise $1,000, and so they pro
cured the two Bruces and Ladd to sign {
, ninety days note at the Montpelier Say
inrs Bank for $1,000. Templeton tool
the note to the bank and the bank refused
TO discount it with those signers. Thu
names of Templeton, Vail and A. G
Dewey of Montpelier were then added
= and then the bank discounted it, Whel
the note became due the bank obtained
some $3.50 out of the bankrupt estates o
VIM. Bruce, Jr., and Ladd, and Hiram
Bruce paid the rest Of it. He now sue
the defendants for contribution as co-sure
| tics. The defence was that Templeton {
Vail signed us sureties for the other sign
ers, and not as cosmetics, and that Bruc
, having had portion of the avails of tn
: note is principal us to them.
The next case was Charlotte Edison vs.
PerleyEBelknap; Homer w. IIeaton an
j. A. Wing for plaintiff, G. NJ. Fisk an
: j. N. johnson for defendant. This Gus
: arose out of dispute in regard to tn
bordering line between the parties hous
: lots in Mortified The defendant and tn
} plaintiffs husband were partners in busi
2 ness and owned the land containing bot
house lots in common. After Edison
5 death division was made and the defend
! ant claims that by mistake in DRAWN
the deed n strip of one hundred feet i
+ width was added TO the plaintiffs lot. Th
! defendant has since attempted to eXcrcis
| rights of ownership over this strip IN
t hence the present suit
The next case was the town Of Water
bury VS. Annette Baker; +. +. Palmer fC
s plaintiff, G.. f. Clough for defendant. |
this case ahe defendants father, AddisU
IIawley, of Waterbury, applied to tn
! town for help, and the town now sues Mrs
4 Baker to compel her to contribute tC
, ward the support Of her father. Th
@ court decided that inasmuch us lIawle
, owned real estate in Waterbury h
+ couldn't be removed and the deiendar
5 couldn't be called on TO contribute till h
property had been used up.
. Wednesday last the court sentence
10 Henry McMurphy to hard labor in ii
q state prison for five years for assault wit
S intent to rape; and Charlotte Lisbon, tw
b years for keeping house of ill.fame, an
, the prisoners were taken to Winds 1
Thursday by Sheriff Tuttlc.
During the week the following divorce
! were heard and granted: Geo. W. Pre-
4 colt of Waterbury vs.. Mary A. Prescott
/ for wilful deserton; Henry b. Town
e Waterbury VS.. Caroline Town, for II
D same; Asa Corliss of Waterbury VS.. Jul
t A. Corlss, for adultery.