Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1881-12-28
Orange County Court,
Hon II. II. POWERS, Presiding Judge.
Hon. s d. DARLING, | ...,.,.., ,..,..
Hon. d. +. CHAPMAN, hSS'Stu" o"oyes

HON. ID. i. CHAPMAN, ! "'''''"''' """yoc'
l.. G. HINcKLEy, Clerk
A. M. CARPENTER, Sheriff
s. b. HEARD, States Aitorneu
JOHN ii. M1MMs, Stenogrdpher.
The December term of this court convened on
the 10Th inst, at Chelsea. The Congregational
pastor, Rev. +. L. Herrck, delivered prayer and
Sheriff Carpenter made the usual proclamation
for the opening Of court and the attendance Of
petit jurymen. Clerk Hinckley then called on,
the names Of those who were to serve as Jurors
Below is the list Of petit jurors: Bradford, J. B.
Pritchard and George Baldwin; Braintree. c.
Flint and M. d. Laport Brookfeld, A. ID. Met.
calf and John II. Sprague; Chelsea, s. II. Barnes
Corinth, j. II. ROBBIE and Nathan Tapin; Ely,
Perley II. Darling and ]. Clough; Fairlee, J. W
Morris and M. +. Rugg; Newbury, L. c. Stocker
and J. A. Brock; Orange, Alvah Bugbee and vii.
liam w. Wilson; Randolph, c. c. Waldo and
Lucus Blodgett; STAFFORD, Dumas X White and
]. II. Clogston; Thetford, G. H. Walton; Tops.
ham, C. f. Taplin and D. Mckay; Tunbridge, A.
A. Northrop and s. B. Jones; Washington, s.
Chamberlain and j. d. Bradley; West Fairlee,
H. B. Wilson and II. NJ. Miller; willamstown,
o. F. Walker and +. b. Gale.
The reading Of the cases set for jury, some
forty, was gone through with, resulting in the
continuance OF several, others being set TO the
court, and some referred No. 40, Campbell ps
Tarbell, is referred to Colonel f. v. Randall; No
10S Tempeton u.s. Town OF Montpelier, an action
to recover damages for an injury on the highwa,
by reason OF an alleged insuffciency, is referred
to Judge Powers few other minor cases are
also referred, all under the act Of 1873
Tuesday afternoon, case No. 81, Royal Burn
ham Us. Town Of STAFFORD, was taken up and q
jury empaneled. This case was tried at the June
term, 1880, and a verdict was ordered for defend
ant; being carried on appeal to the supreme
court, the judgment was reversed and cause re.
manded to the county court for another trial. s.
B. Hebard and c. W. Clarke appear for the plain
tiff, and J. W. Rowell and Charles H. Heath 70,
the defendant town. In 1871 the plaintiff, who
was first selectman, gave a town order to Mrs
Bugbee for the sum Of three hundred dollars Dor.
rowed from her. The treasury was short Of fund.
and that amount was needed to take up an orde,
then about to fall due to the Chelsea bank
Burnham claims he paid in this three hundred
dollars to the treasury and afterward called upon
the latter for some money to take up said bank
order. About year or two later 1t was found
that the order given to Mrs. Bugbee was signed
by the plaintiff for himself and his associates
The other two selectmen repudiated Burnham $
act in signing their names, and at a town meeting
it was voted not to pay the Bugbee order. There
upon plaintiff called upon Mrs Bugbee and paid
her in full, taking up said order, and he now
seeks to recover the amount from the town. The
town treasurer denies that Burnham ever paid in
the amount borrowed Of Mrs. Bugbee, and he
claims that II he went to her and took up the or
der after the town had voted not to pay it, he did
80 at his own risk. as a private individual, he not
at the time holding any town office when he SC
took it up and paid It, The case went to the jury
Thursday, and, after being out until Friday noon,
they were discharged disagreed.
John Clarke Us. o. V. Downing. These parties
who resided in Topsham, had a little fracas in
August 1880, the result being the present action
to recover damages for a personal assault |,
appeared that Mr. Clarke having lost several tur.
keys and "gobbler started to find them. He
discovered new tracks on the road Of a horse
and wagon and these he followed until he dis.
covered, as he supposed, they led to the de-
PENDANTS. He thereupon procured search war.
rant and with Deputy Sheriff Collins went in
quest of his birds. Arriving at the defendants
the latter inquired of his guests and ascertained
their object. Turning to the plaintiff he indig-
nantly inquired il he supposed he (the defendant
had the turkeys. Plaintiff replied that he did,
whereupon defendent ordered plaintiff off his
premises. A scuffle then ensued Plaintiff
claimed he was assaulted. Defendant urged that
he had not used more than sufficient force to put
the plaintiff off the premises after he had had
notice to leave aud declined to do so. The Jury