Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1879-10-08
Washington County Court.
Hon TIMO. J. REpFIELD. ChiefJudge. PreEidiBi
Hon. PHILANDER KItOkD. As istaut JQd Ee.
Hon. JAMES A. COBURN. AssistantJ1dzs.
Melville E SMILE. CLERK.
IRASE LUaLEY. states Attorney.
JOIN L. TUrILE, sheriff.
hay

court, when the trial of state causes will
be takeniup and the miscellaneous bust
ness Of the court disposed of.
The grand jury has not yet finished its
labors, and no one seems able even tc
guess at when it will. 1t is now supposed
to be inquiring into violations of the law
against the sale of intoxicating liquors,
and great is the lamentation in certain
quarters. Montpelier and Barre have
been attended to, and it is reported that
the rest of the towns in the county will be
thoroughly looked after. 1t is six years
since the last raid" and the liquor deal
ers had began TO think that the sword OF
the law had rusted in its scabbard
Messrs. +. W. Bisbee and Levi Smith,
the former a graduate of Mr.. j. 4. Wings
office and The latter of Messrs. Heath &
Cartoons, have been admitted to the bar.
They are young men of unusual qualiica-
tons, and will undoubtedly prove an or
nament to their chosen profession. Mr..
Bisbee will practice in Washington coun-
ty and Mr.. Smith in STAFFORD, his native
town.
The following is a resume of the cases
tried by jury:
II. S. Thresher VS.. Lucius and Richard
Smith. This was an action of trespass
founded upon an assault and battery; and
it turned out in evidence that the battery
was not in this case fictitious. The con-
troversy which brought on the assault was
in regard to giving each other the road
1t was in the winter, and both parties
having loaded teams were afraid to turn
out OF the track too much into the snow.
So they stopped and had their settlement,
in the meantime the horses having more
sense than the men passed along by each
other without the slightest trouble. After
considerable & jawing" the plaintiff put
his hand, as the defendants said into his
pocket to draw revolver. They there
upon thought themselves justified in an
ticipating him, and one of the brothers
struck Mr.. Thresher over the head several
times with a whip-stock, inficting two
cruel wounds upon the scalp. One was
about three inches long and the other
about one inch long. The defendant also
claimed that he, Thresher, raised stick
of wood over his head in a very threaten
ing way. All this had some showing of
genuineness, but when one of the de-
PENDANTS swore upon the stand that after
the affray was quite through, he rounded
it off by giving the plaintiff three smart
kicks upon his seat of honor, the court
remarked that justification was out of the
case, and that the only question for the
jury was the amount of damages. The
hat Mr.. Thresher wore on the occasion
was produced as an exhibit in the case. 1t
was literally pummeled to pieces. The
jury found verdict for the plaintiff to
recover sos.
II. C. Worthen and Wife vs.. Ransom
Dickey, Edison E. Colby and Grin East
man. Messrs. S. C. Shurtleff and Joseph
A. Wing for plaintiffs; Asa NJ. Dickey of
St. Johnsbury and Clarence II. Pitkin for
defendants. This suit was brought to
recover on note of Sl100, only $500 of
which was due when the suit was brought.
The note was executed to Miss Ida East.
man, now the wife of Mr.. Worthen, by
the defendants. Mr.. Grin Eastman is her
father, and upon her mothers death was
appointed guardian of her property arising
from the mothers estate. The other two
defendants, together with Peter Dickey,
were his bondsmen. Upon becoming in
solvent he gave mortgage deed of his
farm to his bondsmen to partially indem-
Nifty them for the liabilities they were
under TO the minors of which he was
guardian. They then altogether executed
this note of Sll00 TO her for full settle
ment of their liability. This note remain
ed in her possession for some time, but she
finally allowed her father to take it for
some purpose or other, and she never saw
it again until it was produced in court
with the signatures Of the signers torn off
it. When she made inquiries about it her
father assured her that it was all right,
and she concluded it was. But after her
marriage to Mr.. Worthen he was more
uneasy about it. He learned there was 4
deed in the town clerks office, Washing
ton, running to his wife, which had some
thing to do with the note. He got the
deed and brought it to his wife. 1t proved
to be 4 mere quit-claim of an undivided
one-third interest in the home farm above
mentioned, to his wife, Ida. The farm
before being conveyed to his bondsmen
was already mortgaged to Mr.. James NJ.
Brock of Montpelier for about $500; and
being worth only about $500, they did
not propose 10 receive the deed as a
recompense for the note, which the
bondsmen were then claiming his wife
had agreed to do. The Brock mortgage
was paid off by the bondsmen, but not till
after the execution to Miss Eastman of the
one third interest. 1t being a mere quit
IL l.. IL
legally liable to lift one-third Of the Brock
mort gage Ii was the absurdity of this
arrangement that the plaintiffs mainly
rested on. The defendants claimed, how
ever, that they agreed at the time of exc
cutting the deed to her that she should not
in any way be encountered with the Brock
mortgage The jury found that no such
trade was ever made by the young lady,
and that she should recover Sl226 80.
| Mark Heath vs.. Daniel kimball. Mr.
J. P. Lamson for plaintiff; Mr.. S. c..
I Shurtleff for defendant. The defendant
executed n note to the plaintiff for about
$50 without date. 1t came up on appeal
| from Justice. The defendant produced
receipt which he claimed was executed
on the day following their settlement and
| the execution of the note in question. The
plaintiff showed that the receipt bore date
the same day that the note was executed,
and utterly denied signing it. OF course
this involved the imputation and charge
of forgery. The jury took this view of the
case, and rendered verdict for plaintiff
/ for S32.2S.
Town of Fayston VS.. Town of Duxbury
This was suit TO determine which town
should de obliged to support young man
named Charles Harrington, his wife and
three children. 1t seemed that the father
of Harrington gained a residence in Dux-
bury before Charles became Of age; then
removed to Fayston where he has ever
since lived. Charles having got married
and become a family man, applied to Fays-
ton, where he and his family were living,
in 1873, for aid. Fayston thought, on look
ing the matter over, that Charles had not
gained residence there after he became
81 and so got an order of removal of
Charles and family upon Duxbury and
hence the present suit. 1t was agreed that
| if Charles had not had a residence for seven