Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1881-10-12
Washington UOunty Court.


of Mortified resulted in verdict for the
defendant. The trouble with the plaintiffs
case was that the town proved very clearly
that the accident was partly due to the
carelessness and negligence OF him and
his son Stephen. The road was undoubt-
edly out of repair; but one Of the plain
tiff horses had run away good many
times and was an unsafe animal to drive
down hill with load of hay. particularly
with the kind of harness which the pair
had on. Mr.. Hogan is greatly to be pitied.
for the result of the case leaves him and
his wife. old and decrepit people, to end
their lives in poverty. The costs are about
four hundred dollars. to pay which all the
old couples property is mortgaged. The
case was ably tried on both sides. and the
arguments Of Mr.. Fisk for the defendant
and of Mr.. Dillingham; for the plaintiff
were especially good.
The other cases tried since last weeks
issue are as follows:
Martin L. Hamhlet vs. A. A Bliss. The
plaintiff in this suit is lawyer in Lowell.
Mass and he brings suit against Mr.. Bliss
of Worcester to recover the value of GER
tain property which the plaintiff claims
Mr.. Bliss unlawlully sold while acting rs
constable of Worcester. II appears that
in August and September, 1879. Mr.. Bliss,
as constable of Worcester, served three
writs on Leonard Hamblet of Worcester.
the father of the plaintiff. One of these
was in favor of Samuel Somerville OF
DuXbury for fifty dollars; one in favor Of
IlUratio Templeton of Worcester FOR a
small amount, and one in favor of Jonas
G. Ormsbee of Worcester for two hundred
dollars. These suits went to Judgment,
and Mr.. Somerville's was paid in money,
and large quantities of hay and grain We're
sold to satisfy the claims of the other two
parties. 1t was also proved that the plain
utf held notes against his father amount
ing to about one ;huL sand dollars with the
interest, and that the plaintiff had taken
public possession of his fathers tarm
property in Worcester in payment OF hi
claims on the 20 b of July; that he had
| hired the crops gathered and paid for the
gathering. and he claimed that his father
had only lived there a. his guest. The
defense WIS that the change in the posses
sion OF the prop, rty had not been sufficient
i TO relieve it from liability for Leonard
| HANDLERS debts. The court ruled AZ inst
| hem and ordered verdict for the plain
| tiff The defendant took exceptions and
he case will probably 90 to the supreme
court. Messrs. J. A. & G. w. Wing for
plaintiff; Messrs. 5. z. 8hurtlef and
Heath & Carleton for defendant.
The Town Of Marshtield vs. The Town
of Mlddesex. This was n fight between
the two towns to see which of them should
have the pleasure of paying the one hun
| >, Il t.yhtnh j.
required for the support of an insane
pauper named George Loveland, who is
now an inmate OF the asylum at Brattle-
boro. 1t seems that George appeared at
be house of his cousin, Daniel Loveland.
in Mtrshtield, on the Odd Of February,
| 1880. having, as he stated, Just come from
| Connecticut, where be had been peddling.
| tie came on foot, carrying his bundle OF
clothes and having upon his person about
seve.ty dollars. which he cOntrived to
spend and lose before he left Mar hield.
| Evidence on the part of the defense showed
| hat Gearge was insane before he went to
| Marsntield; but it appeared from the
plaintiff testimony that he was sane
enough TO make Il contract with his Cousin
| Daniel to work for him the coming ason
! At any rale he soon became go insane that
It was necessary o handcuff hun, and he
Was taken to Middie,ex on an order oil
removal. thence he was immediately taken
| 10 Brattleboro by the town authorities
| Marshtield claims that his settlement was
| n MIddesex, because for i've consecutive
| Years during his minority he had lived
| with his father Harvey Lovelaud, in Mid
desex, whose grand list for those five
! Years was of ~ the value of three dollars
and upwards" The grand list books OF
Mlddlesex for the five years, viz, 1868
SO, 10, II and u. were put into the
case and appeared to make out the neces
,ary proof But the defendant claimed
nat his "ratabIe estate - would not have
been "of the percentage Of three dollar,
md upwards if his dog property had
peen excluded. and they asked the court t.
rule that dogs were not ratahle estate,
! md the court refused TO do so. The
defendant also couteuded that if Harvey
Lpyeland who became town chargt
refore his death, did gain residence II
Mlddlesex before Georges majority
George could not take it, because be WA
mancplted before he came of age, anC
evidence was offered to the effect tina
George took his wages himself IN place
where he had worked before he was legally
Of age. There was conf cling evidence il
regard to his age, but according to tn
.r,timouy Of his sister. SIvira Baylor o
Pracham, he was born in June. 1858
which would make him twenty-eigh
Years. old.
Another point in the defense was merely
WIN reference to the costs, the defendan
, tanning that George was insane when h,
vent to Mtrshield, and could have had n
intention of taking up his residence there
hence the order Of removal should no
nave been brought. The verdict was il
favor Of the plaintiff in all points, and tn
defendant is liable for the support Of III
mnper unless the supreme court decide
hat dogs are not "ratabe property.
Hessrs j P. Ltmson and ). G. ouurtlet
i1r plaintiff; Messrs. Homer w Hetto
md Heath 4 Carleton tpr defendant.
Leonard DIX v. Wheeler J B .tchelde
md Town of Pl.ntieid. The plain d
DIX. now a resident Of MArshiield, 10 lS7
e,ided in Piaintield; and the detendan
Stakeholder, was st tnat time irst cOnSttDt
If PlainIield. 1t seems that DIX had
debt agains Peabody & Co., tirm whlc
F. WIS doing Il lumber business ut that tim
N Groton, but since failed, of 81 42p, an
some odd cents. For the purpose of Sc
4 curing that CLAIM Mr.. Dix had writ mad
out ny Messrs. Heath Il Carleton of VI mi
peiier, and in the latter part of Angus
1876, he sent his brother. Orville Dix, t
h Painfield village with this writ and it
It sructed him to give it to Mr.. Wheeler 4.
b Batchelder, with an order TO serve it an
h attach sufficient property to secure tn
claim. This Orvllle claims he did an
y the defendant accepted the papers to serv,
: Instead of serving the writ himself Ii
i defendant put it into his brother CharI,
I. Batchelder's hands Charles Batche de
WAS not at hat time an officer, and had 4
Z authority whatever to serve papers u
It act as sheriff However, he proceede
d TO make the attachment. The suit wer
s to judgment, and when the plaintiff car
|. to levy on the property he found that tn
d papers had not been served by - person
t proper authority, and that the proper
e mad been sold long before, and the comp
: nv had failed, so there WAS no way
Il = cure his debt. The service had bee
1 4 i