Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1881-10-07
WTNDHAM COUNTY COURT.

JohH HttU"8 u son. This was an action on
the case brought by said association to re-
cover OF the defendants the amount claimed
to he due for the use of store In Bellows
Falls and for the value of certain fixtures in
said store, consisting of shelves, counters
glass doors or coverings, etc 1t appeared
that in the fall Of 1877 John RettinR went TO
Bellows Falls for the purpose of making ar
rangements to start his son, Chas. f. Rettinp
in business. He made an apreement for q
store in Union block with Mr.. Arms who had
charge of the same. Tho plaintiffs claimed
and their evidence tended to show. that n
written lease was so made and executed by
the parties, and that the defendants were TO
remove the shelving and fixtures in the store
formerly occupied for selling hardware, and
replace said fixtures in good condition at tho
termination of the lease. That in pursuance
OF this bargain the defendants removed the
fixtures and stored them in a basement TO a
store adjoining the one occupied by them.
where they remained until DESTROYED by FIRE
late in the fall Of 1878. That the defendants
continued to occupy said store until the sum-
mer of 1879, and refused to pay any rent af-
ter April LIST of that year, and also refused TO
pay for the fixtures burned, or replace the
same.
The defendants evidence tended to show
that he rented the store, and at the time of
removing the fixtures, made inquiry of Mr..
Arms where he could store the same, and
was directed to see one Fletcher and move
the same to his store basement and that this
was done with the knowledge and direction
of Mr.. Arms That after the FIRE, written
lease was presented by Arms for execution
by defendants, which Mr.. John Rettinp re-
fused to sign, insisting that IL did not state
the agreement as he understood IL Mr.
Retting further claimed that he was not per-
sonally interested in the business of his son
at Bellows Falls, and that he so informed Mr..
Arms, though il appeared that all the bust
ness was carried on under the name of John
Retting Son. That the rent was paid to
April 1st 1879, at which time his son sold
out to one Chase. That Chase removed the
furniture from the store with the exception
of some articles upon the upper floor which
escaped his attention, and which remained
there for several months. II was further
shown that the fixtures as well as building
were insured, and that the insurance compa-
MES adjusted the loss for 800, but plaintiffs
claim this included no allowance for injury
to the fixtures in controversy because they
had been removed. In short the plaintiffs
claim to recover rent for the store after il
was vacated as place of business by defend
ant G. +. Retting, and also claim that defend
ants are bound to pay for fixtures burned.
Case still on trial.
Sylvester E. RdOson as. Elbrfdqe w.
Prior In October, 1872, the defendant be-
ing the owner of the hotel property in ia
maica, gave to plaintiff bond for deed of
the same property and the plaintiff entered
into possession. The stipulations as to pay
ment by plaintiff not being complied with.
the defendant, in 1874 brought an action of
ejectment against plaintiff, which was entered
at the April term 1874, of this court, and
thence continued to the September term. A
motion to redeem the premises was then
made by plaintiff, and one year from the 26th
day of Sept, 1874, was allowed by the court
in which plaintiff might redeem the premises
by paying the defendant the amount of pur-
chase money due, with interest and costs.
The plaintiffs evidence tended to show
that prior to the expiration of the year for
redemption, in August, 1876, the defendant
agreed with the plaintiff at Ludlow, Vermont,
where defendant was then residing, to pay
plaintiff the difference between $500 and
the amount of defendants claim upon the
property, which the evidence tended to show
was then S2332 and that defendant should
then take possession of the property and buy
the hotel furniture and fixtures of plaintiff
and that if defendant should sell the proper
ty, within one year from the time of this
trade, he should pay plaintiff such amount
above the sum of $500 as he might receive
for the property that in pursuance of this
arrangement defendant took possession of
the property on Oct. 18th, 1875, and bought
of plaintiff the furniture, fixtures, and pro-
visions in the house, at price agreed upon
between the parties. Plaintiff gave evidence
tending to show that defendant after this
contract admitted the contract, as claimed by
the defendant, to other persons.
The defendants evidence tended TO show
that he had, at the time of the alleged con-
tract, purchased place at Ludlow; that he
needed the money invested in the Jamaica
property; that he did not want the property,
and that he tried to find a purchaser for the
property and at such price that plaintiff
might realize something out of it; that he
did not agree as plaintiff claimed, but, after
the year redemption expired, and after he
took possession, he told plaintiff that he
might have all that fall and winter in which
to find purchaser, and that all defendant
wanted was the amount he had invested in
the property that afterwards he offered to
discount one hundred dollars, or pay plain
tiff that amount if he would find purchas-
er and pay him the amount the property had
cost him that he laid out some $500 in me-
cessary repairs upon the property after tax.
ing possession. Defendants evidence furth-
er showed that plaintiff, after the taking pos
session by defendant, from time to time loan
ed plaintiff small sums of money, amounting
to S22j, and that plaintiff became indebted
to him upon other dealings, all of which de.
PENDANT from time to time settled and paid
without claiming of plaintiff anything on &C
count of the sale of the hotel property.
The action was assumpsit and brought To
recover the sum of $lds and interest, and
$500 Defendants evidence showed that he
sold the hotel property April LIST, 1880, fol
5000
Plea the general issue, accord and satisfac-
ton, and set of. Verdict for the defendant
and nothing allowed defendant upon his
claim in offset. E. l.. Waterman 4 ]. L.
Martin for plaintiff. H. F. Wolcott and O.
B. & G. f. Eddy for defendant
Criminal Cases.
State vs. Edgar C. Belden. Nolle prosequi.
State VS. Chas. Cleveland. Nolle prosequi.
State vs.. Barton NJ. streeter. Nole prosequi.
State vs. Fred @. streeter HOlle prosequi.
State vs. Arthur Belden. Bond forfeited
State vs. VIM. Hazard OF Bellows Falls Charged
with larceny and breaking jail. Plead guilty.
State vs. Levi Troot. Bond forfeited.
State VS.. Elbridge sugland. Charged with assault
with intent to kill and found guilty Of common as
saut (Ihis was for an assault on one Van Alstine
negro, committed In March last and fuly reported
at the time.l -
on @. b. Kirwan of Brattleboro. Plead guilty.
State Va, willard Shepard. Selling liquor. Bon'
5000 forfeited.
state VS.. lease @. Homes Selling liquor. Plead gull
ty to two first offenses. Fine $40, costs 49,
State Va. Cortes p. Barrett Selling liquor. Plea'
guilty to four first offenses. Fine $40, costs sl6lO
State VS.. Elijah Stockwell Selling liquor Bon'
N29O) forfeited.
State vs. Austin N. Kingsley Selling lquor. Plea
guilty to 90 hrst offenses Fine $780, costs 1885.
State VS.. Addison Withheld Selling liquor boh'
V2OO) forfeited.
state vs.. Frank E. Reed Selling liquor. BON
$500 forfeited.
III. ~. n naH
vs. Norman Chase, Nottingham case growing out o
aschool tax Of Sl.44.
President Garfield told the writer OF thes'
lines Thursday night, June 80, that Blaine hat
remained scrupulOusly within the line OF hi
duties, and had not interfered with other de
partments; that he, the President, was re-