Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1881-03-30

Dennis Donahue and Thomas Mullaly
vs.. the Windsor county Mutual Fire In
surance Company. This suit was brought
TO recover the value OF some twenty-five
tons of hay which were insured by TINS
cOmpanu, and which was burned Seplem-
Der "a, 1879. Donahue lives in the Cox
brook neighborhood in Berlin with MS
mother. Joanna Donahue; and Mullaly'
who now lives in Middlesex, was then
resident in the same neighborhood. 1t
appears that in the spring of 1879, Dona-
hue had hired place known as the Hurley
farm and adjoining the farm of the bona
hues; and he cut part of the grass ON tins
/ farm himself, and sold part of it to +. 7.
Fisk of Gouldsville. This hay was stored
in the barn on the Hurley place, part OF 1t |
in a shed, the rest on two scaffolds and IN
the bay of the barn. Fisk then sold his
share TO Mullaly. who was to pay for get |
ting it insured. On the 10Th of August
Donahue got Dexter f. Boytien Of North
field to come up and insure it Donahue
testified that he valued the hay ut 500.
Boyden estimated the amount as well as
he could, and after some chaffering he
tween them, Donahue and Fisk, who was
also present. he agreed to call the hay
twenty five and half tons and insure 1t
for $3.50. Boyden testified that there was
a horse stable, hen house, and manure
arch, which were concealed by the hay, so
that he was deceived rs to the amount.
Donahue and Fisk testified on the other
hand that those places we're pointed out to
him; that no deceit was attempted, and
that it was his own fault if he WIS deceiv-
ed. This took place about the goth of
August, and the hay was burned about
month later while Dennis Donahue and his
brother Jerry were in Montreal, on IN
excursion of that date. After the burning
of the hay there was a suspicion that
Donahue and Mulaly had set fire to 1t to
get the insurance money, and they were
, indicted. But the indictment of the grand
Jury was quashed, and nothing further has
been Gone about it on the part of the state.
A notice of the loss was made on by Geo.
NJ. Fisk of Mortified, and presented to
, the company in due time. A question was
, raised, however, as to the sufhcency OF
, the notice; but he court ruled that it was
good. The jury evidently thought there
was no proof of conspiracy TO delraud
t the Insurance Company. for they returned
l a verdict for the plaintiffs to recover Sl69
, and costs The defendant company took
! exceptions. and the case will probably go
to the Supreme Court
It Messrs johnson, Carpenter, and Heath
: & Carleton appeared for the plaintiffs ;
Messrs. French and Pumley for the In
v surance Company.
Y Charles and Joseph Daffsny VS. George
!. and Frank Corbeile. This case which was
: on trial at the time of our last weeks re-
:, port, involved the settlement of the line
C between lots 80 and 81 in the southern
J. part of Northfield. and in what is called
1t the first division of lots, in the town ol
IS Waitsfield, and which we're set off from
n Waitsfirld to Mortified several years ago
j Lot 80, which belongs to the plaintiffs, is
n in fifth range of lots and is directly south
h If lot "a which is in the ixth range. The
: great question in the case was whether thu
d east and west lines of the town were wha
d are called "original" lines or not. The
= line in question was one of these east anC
J. west lines. The original survey of tn,
town was made by William Strong a maj
well known in the early history of Yer
e = mont, and member of congress in 17S,
u or 1888. The plaintiffs insisted that h
y :, ran north and south lines only that as h,
~ was running from north to south, at tn
'e end of each $50 rods he marked corners 81
|
:. near as possible Against this view tn
II defendants urged that Waitstield was al
- exception to the other town in that partic
=, ular, and that the east and west lines wer
~ run first, owing to the obstacle presente
~ by Bald Mountain against running mort
~ and south If Waitstield was an exceptio
T., to the general custom of running the mort
y and south lines first, it was the only one i
u the county. The plaintiffs claimed tha
81 =, the ancient east and west lines now cxls
81 ing were not rs old rs the north and sout
49, -, lines, and consequently are not Il part
~ the original survey made by VIM. Strong
h The defendants put chips taken frol
~ marked trees into the case to show that tn
-, east and west line in dispute was part
h ts the first survey. The grains in the WOO
~ showed that the marks had been mac
~ L about 80 years ago. If this line is the oil
one, the surveyor evidently made a vic
error in his calculation, for lot 81 and Il
other lots in the sixth range contain abol
ne 1870 acres, and lot 80 and the others in Il
he fifth range contained only about 100 acre
ly But the defendants showed it had long bee
~ understood that the fifth range was ma
JIG row range of lots by several old resden
Oh Of Waitsfield, among them Mr.. Ezra
on Joslyn, who has been lister at three n
M praisals of the real estate in the town
- Waitsfeld. He said that the lots in Il
ah fifth range had always been placed in Il
EN- list at l20 acres. Several witnesses te
nd ti6ed that while the east and west lin
mas could be easily traced from the height
~ land between Mortified and Waitsfe
'he clear to Moretown. the north and sou
the lines were indistinct The case lasted fro
I'D Tuesday morning till Friday mornin
The jury brought in II verdict for the q
ay, PENDANTS, and in addition the followi
md special verdict: "The jury also find t
let south east corner of lot 80 to be l26 70
the south from the northeast corner OF 81,
IN lot 32, or the birch tree admitted to
'es. the corner marked tree
uld Messrs. Heman, Carpenter and S.
uid Shurtleff for plaintiffs; Messrs. Fra
his Plumley and Heath & Carleton for
any PENDANTS.
not B. W. Marsh VS.. Matthias j. Stor
the This case occupied the attention of t
Ell. court Monday afternoon. The parties Il
lish from Cabot, and the suit was brought
the recover the face and interest of a note
pay S62, which the defendant gave to /
lent plaintiff for the consideration that
cars should sign an agreement. along W
ave Stones other creditors, to accept seven
ide five cents on the dollar on his debt. Jud
Taft held that such procee ling was
fraud on the other creditors and on
son third party who bought up the claims
NV the creditors. and ordered The jury TO
~ turn verdict for the defendant. Mr..
ioo G. Shurtleff for plaintiff; Messrs. Lams
ont and Geo. w. Wing for defendant.
the There is one other case to be tri,
nlly Morris VS.. Boyce, and then tho state ca
en- will be tried.
the One out of the many respondents in t
lpa- liquor cases. Clarence G. Carr of Bar
and has pleaded guilty of two offences and p
any the fine and costs. amounting to SAL 81
ong The case of Emma j Dieter vs.. To
d of Montpelier has been continued.
ing The case of Charles 7. Sabn, assign
ION of George Jacobs, VS.. Estate of Az,
rom Cummings, in which the defence is t
Tile, Jacobs forged the note upon which
old suit is founded, has been set not for
Until jury by the defendant, and there will