Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1880-04-14
washington County Court.

ERIN 90 TO the supreme oou'' U"
ng law points.
The so.called " Sand-b bank " cases from
Calais both 90 up on exceptions. Henry
<. GRAY. son of OILS Gray, was killed by
he caving in of sand into pit dug by D.
y.R. Kent last July. The first case was
n the name of Otis Gray to recover Tor
oss of service and expenses. Inc court
ruled pro forma that the action could not
be maintained, it being a civil action by
be n,rent where the child was instantly
killed. The second case was brought by
D. B Fay, administrator OF the deceased
child, demanding $1,000 damages oil Mr.
Kent fer the death of the child lhe
showed that the bank was IN the
but on the land OF Z. NJ TRAY
who gave Kent license TO dig and dld not
rive the boy license to go into the pit
that the pit was far above the travelled
portion of the highway and the boy was
not a traveller. The court held pro Jorn'"
the plaintiff could not recover. Inc TWO
cases 90 up on exceptions by the plaln'lh''
Heath & Carleton for plaintiffs; and wings
for defendant.
The case of S. d. Hollisler VS.. w. D.
r ,tchelder was an action OF repleVlh IoI
COWS and Young stock. The FACTS proven
we're MS follows: The defendant, rs con-
.t,,l lie of PIainiield, ON the 9Th day OF Jan
nary 1879, attached the property IN queS-
tion rs the property of one Townsend on
writ in favor Of G. L. Batchelder, by leav-
ING copy of the writ in the town clerk
office of Plainliell, but gave townsend no
notice of this attachment rs required ny
the act of 1872, page 81. On the ION
Law of the same January, one Stephen H.
H1Ilisler, without notice of said attach
ment. commenced suit against SAID Town
send; and the plaintiff in this SUIT WIN
the constable of Marshlield, went To saiu
rownsend's house, and there attached the
same properly; and then they agreed IN
writing to have the property sold ABOUT
The Sd of February, according to the STAT
ute; neither the said plaintiff or lowh
send having any notice OF said hrst a.
tachment; that the officer then and there
posted said property for sale, anu Then
went to the town clerks Office In Plaln-
field and left copy of his attachment as
the law required When the officer went
10 the town clerks Office with his copy he
was told that prior copy had been iclI
in the Office by the defendant. On the DAY
of the sale the defendant In TINS suit hou'
lied the said officer not to sell The proper
", us he had previously attached the same,
but the officer sold the same, and TIT
plaintiff bid off said property, but lett II
with said Townsend to keep; that the
defendant never notified said Townsend oil
the attachment until February. long aftel
said sale; that alter the purchase OF SAID
property by the plaintiff, the defendant
look the same away when the writ OF re-
plevin was brought. The court held thai
the defendant had not acquired any lien OF
the property by his attachment, as he hai
not given he notice to the defendant re
uuired by the statute, and rendered judy
ment for the plaintiff; exceptions by tht
defendant, and cause passed to the su
preme court. j. A. and &. w. Wing FOL
plaintiff; S. g. Shurtletf for defendant.
The case of Ella l.. Bancroft VS.. Estate
nf A. ! Bancroft was an action or appea
from the probate court of Washington
county denying the claim of the plMntll
20 any portion of the estate us helr'at-l Law
to said A. j. Bancroft. The plaintiff
declaration set forth that she was tn,
Janohter of GRANGER. now deceased, an,
,,,rrie f.. GRANGER. his wife; that after TIN
Ir,th Of said Gran0pr the said Carrie L
was locally married to the said A, j
Bancroft. and the said a. j. Bancroft VIII
dulv appoinled guardian OF the said ELI
T. I,ranrer and that she went to live witt
INN in his family: that on the 9TH day o
March. 1879. the said A. J. Bancroft, AM
CARRIE f.. B,ncroft. his wife, appeare
| hef,re Carlos Carpentrr, a Justice of th
neace in said Barre. under the act of 1876
No. 8, and under said act adopted the sal
Eta f.. Granger It's the heir-;lt law of til
aid A j, B1ncroft and Carrie f., hi
| wife and changed her name to Ella l.
Bancroft; that the said Ella l.. Grange
AVA, then "A minor and the said A. j. Ban
croft Stoned said instrument of adopto
AS guardian for said Ella l.. Granger; tina
from that time the said Ella l., resided i
The family of the said \. j. Bancroft unit
,he came of age when the parties b.
verbal agreement ratified and renewe
the contract of adoption, and the said A
j. Bancroft aili med 10 her that she WA
legally adopted and if size remained wit
nm until his death or her marriage sh
should be the heir TO all his property no
inherited by his wife; that under Sail
contract the said Ella l.. continued Il
reside with the said ~. j. Bancrofts faml
AS his daughter till the time of his deal
IN 1876 and claiming to be the sole heir 4
said a. j Bancroft after the widow ha'
her share of the estate. To this dcclarat'
there was II general demurrer Tn
brothers and sisters of said A. j. Bancroft
he having no children, claimed the adol
non was defective in some thirty or fort
points, but the principal one was that A
j. Bancroft in his private capacity cuu
not contract with himself rs guardian |
adopt said child, and that the adoptio
was therefore void; that the law itself WI
defective and even if The law was followe
the law was so defective that it would n,
give her any right us heir to the estate
The counsel for the plaintiff contendc
ters cannot avoid II; that on her coming