Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1880-03-24
Orange County Supreme Court.
MARcIT TERM. 1880.

promissory notes between the same par
ties. In the county court the defendant
set the cases " not for the lnry, out iali-
ing to show good cause for continuance
judgment was rendered for the palntlll'
and the only question made in this court
was whether after such Judgment the
defendant would be permitted to show on
assessment of damages that the plalntlii
demand had been paid, SO that IN iact
nothing was due. The cases were argued
but the court failing to agree upon the
proper judgment to be rendered. they
were continued to the general term: a.
w. Rowell and r. Farnham for plaintlfi !;
c. w. Clarke and q. Kennedy Tor deienu-
ant
Ira K. Melendy VS.. Town OF Bradford'
In this case there was petition for new
trial as well as exceptions to the ruilnS OF
the county court. The petition was Daseu
on newly discovered evidence. In tle
court below the plaintiff recovered Soooo',
66--damages and costs. Judgment OF
the county court reversed and cause re-
manded on the ground OF error IN the
charge in relation TO the degree OF care
required OF travellers; holding that tiie
plalntitf must be IN the exercise oil in't
care and prudence exercised by prudent
man, and that the expressions used BY the
Judge IN ms charge to the Jury ,hat pam
TN must be IN the exercise OF that uegree
OF care used by an ordinarily prudent
man ana ordinary man GonVeyeI TL "
the jury wrong ldea OF the law lne
petition LOT new tr.al was ulsiil'ss sW
without costs. ): M. Gleason ana d. W.
Kowell Tor plalntih; orln uamoeil an" ~
farnham Tor defendant;
Ell D. folsom VS.. EDWARD DouS'ass'
This was petition Tor new triai on 5nc
grouna Oh ne" eVluence' Letltion us
missed WIN COSTS. N. Il, boyeen loi
petltioneei o'arke " Aust,h ior ueie"''''h' .
u o. ueorSe vs.. H. r. west anu ona' res
.iahsoh' LUIS WAS an lc'io,i vi MesPa>'
lor uozeh sheep ana lalilos' ihI Wv,
'rhuahl Pe"ueo sPecla''y 'n.l lie 'yon ano
Sheep WINE on ms premises u""ly1 w.
IeaSanS' ana rroVe thelli 10 Tue Pounu "n"
gave plaiht'n h1tice "l'iln twenty .ou
hours .he'eoi' 10 'nis p'ea ,ho P,''a,' !!
replied &c ugnSth' etc;' tnu unuei .nlS
oie'' against ueienuanI oploot'on, n.y.
'ueeu ev'oence SHOWING lho ueien h =
lrespassers 40 mlsso Dy reason Oh npusG VI VI
'utnorlty subsequent 10 the ',iPouhu'ns
ina hotice' hef" erroneous anu Juus,he't It
'eVerseo anu cause ,eine"'n'' E'"rn' W
| tns''n LOT pla'nl'h' D. d. iioo''" io'
ueiendahts' ,o
hahs"h D'ckey' al','' vs. oenJiili'n one.
heV estate. APpe', iro'H Piooa,e ANY, ,h'
Exceptions taken ny Tue "elenlahI W .l'
r"ilnS OF tne county court "'ertnl'hs
lnotioh TO ulsmiss ouuS'hent "liiIuir =,
O,arhe ~ hu>1'n ior plt'h''i' 'ohu II
WATSON ioT Tue ueieii''"'ti ", y, ,e,
| hnlas hutchinson vs. l. 1. pu,'c' hel'
anu o'Ders. Appear from court oi cl'ncerS
ny the defendants. Decree reverse" ah'
OIL dismissed on the GROUND tllat 'he ora
or had no Standing IN court 10 c,a'h
iecree rs against the cia'n Oh lne hoihe
stead made ny the VIE OF one OF deiehu
ants: d. w. howeli ior orator; ferrlh
McWaln ior the deiendants.
Isaac W: Linheld VS., M. Il. l1lnneld
'ls. Petition Tor foreclosure oil mort
gage gwen TO orators ntesta'e; appea
by orator from decree OF court OF chahce
ry. Defendant claimed that ny Piro
agreement WIN the sald ihtesta'e th
mortgage was not TO DC enforced, nut TN
court found the fact against HIM. ant
decree was reversed and decree Tor orator
~ w; howell ana d. ~. Kinney Tor ora
tor; n. L.. Boyden Tor defendant:
Richard Smith VS.. Ora ii. Goodale. re
luton for new trlal Tor newly discovered
evidence. Pe'ilion dismissed with -, costs fI
Clark " Austin Tor petllloner; D. Is. lie
bard for defendant.
First National Bank OF Chelsea vs.. Jan
rus ID. lsham. Petition for new trial 10
reasons OF law. Petition dismissed Oh
same matters s. Is. Hebard for petitioner
j. W. Roweli for defendant =. -,
Albert 5. Mcdonnell VS. Ira A. Merr'l
and another. Action on note signed by
both defendants In the county court tn
Palntlil offered evidence 10 snow thaC ate
the statute OF Limitations haa run uPor
the note as TO the defendant Worthley, ne
I-Worthly-requested pla'ntlif 10 attacn
property OF Merrills upon " suit on thl'
note ana that ne would pay inc coSts
the proceeding himself and 1t was CLAIM
ed that ms WIN the circumstances al
tending It, would remove The statute ba
as to him. Inc county court excluded ~ NJ
evidence, ana plaintl excepted: lh'
case Is WIN lhe court. 1oIlh IL. "a'so'
ana d. H. Daring Tor pIalnliil; farnhan
LhamDerilh ior ''eiehuahI WoItnly'
l.. U: ilhchley vs.. russell a. INT mp,
Exceptions by the defendant 10 Tue hho
Jngs OF the county court upon 'he eViqehc
onered ny pialht'il IN lnnt court JUG
ment OF county court alllrmea' C,atke ..
austin ana a. W. howeli lor piaihIlh
reTfln " NC VAN lor oG 81
James n. Lynne vs.. ~. L., WATSON hh'
trustee Exceptions by p'''nlih 10 tn'
report Oh Commissioners upon "'ilc'' III
county court discouraged 'ne trustee
Judgment "lllrmed' d. w. ho"eil 10
Ihe plalhtil ueorSe Il, SLOW ior trustee
seymour ~ Cole an" "iie vs. hc,,at'
u. himoali. hAcept'ohs ny P'alh'ln Il
ruiinS oil county court upon report
referee. Judgment OF county court re
versed ana judgment ior pIaihti1f 10
largest sum reported: +, Ferrm ana j
w: howell Tor P'aih'll; N. H. boyden 10
defendant
SANFORD Bahnlstcr vs. John Edgerton
Exceptions by defendant on report
relerce' Judgment aiilrmeu' ~; u, BOY 10y
zen Tor PIaIht1l; l.. rerrlh ana u "
Clarke Tor de1t nuant.