Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1878-05-08
IamoiIIe County Court.
HON II. II. POWERS. Presiding JUDGE
Hos. v STILES STILES Assistant Judges
III. ii. KENFIELD. Clerk.
LIB SHERwIS, SheTiF; -,
E.W. THORPE. States Attorney
n M.,,Ns RsUOrkfr

han r. Mower. Eden; IL. d Cook and
r r. Goodell, Elmore; Leonard +. Alien,
A ! Campbell, Orlin S. Spauldlng ana
Adna V. Wiswell. Hyde Park; Cyrus
Davis, Isaac A. Manning. + j Sinclair ana
IZ.chariah Whiting, johnson; W. ). Cne-
new. r. l.. Fairbanks, S. S. Gle, j. T.
Hnse and A. X. Spalding. Morrlstown
N w HODGES, A. G. Lamson, ID j. Nc
Allister. Josephus Mum and Orrin Serb
ner Stowe; Hiram N. Leach and Moses
Mcfarland. Waterville; j. Z. Davis, y.
G. Fisher and A. NJ. Hartman, Wolcott.
Deputy Sheriffs II. C. Lanpher of Hyde
Park and T. j. Baker of johnson were
sworn to attend upon the jury during the
term.
Upon the call of the docket thirty seven
civil and sixteen criminal causes were sci
down for trial by jury.
The first case tried was B. w, Green vs.
lev Randall, and Trs. This was an action
of rs ,umpsit, to recover alleged damages
growing out of farm trade. The EVIL
ldence showed that on the Gath day OF April
ISL, Daniel Dingwall and vile held the
little to what is known rs the Anasa
Spaulding farm in Morrstown, and that al
lsaid date they executed mortgage deco
of the same to the defendant, Col. f V.
Randall, to secure several thousand DOL
lars; that subsequent to that time the de
PENDANT sold and assigned said mortgage
to j. T. Dewey, of Montpelier; that on the
a. h day of March, 1873, IA part of said
farm was conveyed by the said Dlngwa'l
and wife to the plaintiff and by him mort
gagged to the defend mt TO secure the sum
of 5000, specified in ten promlssory notes,
and at the same time paid to the defendant
toward the purchase OF said farm by other
p,operly, the sum of $1,000; that these
NOR gage notes were turned over TO the
said Dewey as collateral security to the
former mortgage; that the plaintiff faile'l
to pay his notes as they became due, and
the first mortgage was foreclosed ut the
March term, 1875, of the Washington
county court of chtncery, by which the
plaintiff lost his farm. The plaintiff
claimed, and his evidence tended to show,
tina, at the time he executed the mortgage
and notes above named, the defendant
agreed to take up the DiDgwall notes and
procure the discharge of the Dingwall
mortgage, at that time; the defendant
claimed, and his evidence tended TO show.
hat he did not make such an agreement,
that it was not in his power so to do, bui
that he did agree to turn in the plaintiff S
notes AS collateral security and that when
u.ld they were TO be applied on the Ding
wall mortgage. and that he did turn over
said notes as he agreed. The defendant
also claimed that the plaintiff took of
from said farm large quantity of valuable
timber, to the damage of said farm, and
that he had received IL large quantity OF
personal property consisting OF live stock,
farming tools, &c., and the use Of the farm
for Two years, which had fully compen-
stated the plaintiff Tor any damages that lie
might have sustained, us he claimed. The
defendant further claimed that he was in
DO, session of said premises under the
i, Dngwal mortgage, by reason of an ar
ranyement between the defendant and
said Dingwnll, which his evidence tended
to show, and that if so. rs matter of law
P he had an interest in said farm 10 convey,
: which he did not cOnvey,and that hence he
was not liable under any contracts claimed
in and upon which this action was founded.
!, rhe jury returned u general verdict Tor
the plaintiff for $ll35.66 damages, and
they also found specially, that the defend
! ant was in possession of said premises
! under the Dngwall mortgage, on the 18th
: day of March, 1873, at the time said prem
t ises were conveyed to the plaintiff by said
y Dlngwall. Exceptions oy ueiehu'ht' a.
Z. Burke ana T. IN Gleea ior tne p,t'hlln
The defendant, pro Sc assisted Dy MeSsTS'
brisnam " "aetnian' anu oii"i iee -
Heath' Esq, ~
Inc secoiio c"se 'iIeu Wy Jul W US ID y
" "oodworth vs. tlic ~, i1t!hol'le '"iiey n'il,
ROAD Co. anu It's 1n'S was "n ACTION y,
= assuihpsit ~ recoFei 'ol iaooi Poii 'ie {"
e oy Tue P'alIt'l anu !len unuei ii.ih' ~
lencms ,ne i,ne VI st'l ," III h anu ~ pl
hliiease 'ioA1cS Pun oiidaeu oS nun ~. ny
use ol niinSe,i ?nu iiiou o,' s'.'' io'' nie
D enS"se9 III Ju,a - SOW On,n ci., "p
= Pe"'eo AZ e''u.nno a,''v ,;,i NV U w. VI,
If teteu mo a ~. oos'"I. I'.n w.
.,eo', VI t"o W ,h'' p w.,
t''i'ro"u ~ i' 'ha Ino ~ s.;I r";lnd trnn
J. tno iGloo VI 'uo 1'no y, ''. .',''ou'
tho CV I' 'h ,noI ,h'' I',;,;l, "
p Sa!u Cauy s"pLoon,, ;';m '.ie 0 .h y
IS saso ienoe " 'Io p",,.,A' .".. t"I p III,
~ un,oi sow nv, oe'.,'''o,' w. OF,
: 1uil'' y, saw ~ ';,,' 'no III I'n H., V
y july lo'o' II. "n,o.l '''no sun l'''' . o''
'ompanh ehteIeu l"to new con''"e
wl.h sa'u E'uy, wleLeoy sI'" T"uy wac "
IS nnisn up tne ience I'i!l' ne l'lu oosuh "
o cer'''n po.nV ''''ihe" ~ .ne oo"'. az .'"'
- su'len,c' t'io oii2in"i e'''''''' ""u e1',''
up VIII 'nc '"i'io'u ooiii Pa,',es' an" &c
: Tue companies TAKE the ou'l'nnS Vi .h
d fence mo 'ne'r own ii"hus VIA. , unueI LII