Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1881-03-30
Washington County Court.

highway. Inc jury business VIII be nnished
this week, and recess will then be taken before
the transaction Of the miscellaneous business.
Judge Taft is now presiding, Judge Powers
having returned home on Saturday.
Emma g. Dieter Us. Montpelier, a suit to re-
cover damages for injuries which the plaintiff re-
ceived a year ago by slipping on the sidewalk in
front Of Union block, and Charles T. Sabin, as
signee OF George Jacobs, Us. the Estate Of Avery
Cummings will not be tried, and will probably be
settled. The defense in the Jacobs Is that he
forged the name Of Avery Cummings to a note
Clarence G. Carr Of Barre pleaded guilty to ten
first offences against the liquor law and paid
fine and costs OF sii.g7.
Charles and Joseph Duffauy Us. George and
Frank Corbeille This case was on trial at the
close of our last report and was an action of
trespass on the freehold; but 1t involved the set
tlement Of lots thirty-two and thrty-four, which
are In what is called the first division of lots in
Waitsfied, and which was set off to Mortified
several years ago. Lot thirty-two, which belongs
to the plaintiff, is In the fifth range and directly
north Of lot thifty-four, which Is in the sixth
range. The question raised was whether the east
and west lines Of these lots, Of which the line in
question formed part, were what were known as
original lines 1t was customary in the early sur
veying In the county to run north and south lines
only, and the plaintiffs claimed that this was the
case in lines in dispute and that the east and west
lines had been run later. They showed by old
records that the original survey was made by Will
liam Strong in 1886. Strong was prominent In
the early history Of the state and was member
Of congress in 1856 or 1888; and they urged that,
II these east and west lines were run then,
W was an exception to all the other towns
MY. To this the defendants replied
ptain presented an obstacle to run
north and south, and that the lines
were run east and west, and they put into the
case chips taken from marked trees on the east
and west lines, and showed by the grains OF the
wood that the surveyors marks must have been
there about ninety years. The plaintiff claimed
that the survey was run from north to south, and
a corner marked at the end of every one hun
dred and fifty rods, so rs to make each lot con-
tain one hundred and fifty acres as near as pos
sible; and II the defendants were right, the sur
veyor had made gross miscslculation, for,
allowing the lines and corners which the
defendants claimed to be the true ones to be
the old lines of lot thrty-four and all the 9TH
ers in the sixth range would contain about
one hundred and eighty acres and lot thirty-two
and the others in the fifth range would only have
about one hundred and twenty acres. To this
the defendant said that this discovery of the diff
ference in the size of the lots was no new thing
and they showed by old residents of Waitsfied
that the lots in the fifth range had been consd-
cred narrow tier of lots ever since they had
known anything about it. Mr.. Ezra o. Joslyn Of
Waitsfed testified that he had been lister in that
town at three real estate appraisals, and that lot
thirty-two had always gone in at one hundred and
twenty acres. Several citizens of waitsfeld also
testified that from the height of land between
Waitsfeld and Mortified, the east and west lines
could be easily traced clear to the Moretown line
but that those lines running north and south were
indstinct and hard to trace. After long and
tedious trial, lasting from Tuesday morning to Fri
day forenoon, the case went to the jury who re-
turned general verdict for the defendants, and
also the following special verdict The jury also
find the southeast corner of lot thirty-two to be
one hundred and twenty-six rods south from the
northeast corner of said lot thirty-two, or the
birch tree admitted to be the corner marked tree
Messrs. Heman Carpenter and S. c. Shurtleff for
the plaintiffs; Messrs. Plumley and Heath and
Carleton for defendants.
Dennis Donahue and Thomas Mullaly Us. Wind
sor County Mutual Fire Insurance Company. As
it appeared from the evidence there were several
tons Of hay stored in barn, on what is known
as the Hurley place, in Mortified. in the Cox
brook neighborhood, and owned by the plaintiffs
in this suit. Donahue, one Of the plaintiffs lives
on farm with his mother in this same neighbour
hood, and their farm lies adjoining to the Hurley
place mentioned above, and the buildings on the
two farms are about half mile apart. Mullaly,
tiiu otio. piaintiu, formerly was a neighbor Of
the Donahues but now lives in Middlesex The
way the plaintiffs came to own the hay was this:
In the spring of 1879 Donahue hired the Hurley
place and carried it on the following summer.
Part Of the grass he cut himself and part he let
to Edwin p Fisk of Gouldsvle. After the hay
was stored in the barn on the Hurley place, Fisk
sold his share of it to Mullaly, with the under
standing that the latter should pay for getting it
insured. On the 10Th OF August Donahue and
Fisk drove to Mortified depot village and
brought back with them Dexter T. Boyden, who
was an agent Of the defendant company, to in
sure the hay. The hay was in shed attached to
the barn. in the bay and upon two scaffolds Of
the barn Boyden testified that Fisk and Dona-
hue deceived him as to the amount of hay that
there was hen-house, horse-stable and manure
arch, 80 covered as to appear all solid hay The
testimony of Fisk and Donahue, however, showed
that no Intentional deceit was practiced upon
Boyden that the stable, arch and hen-house were
in plain sight; and that II he did not see them it
was his own fault The only conclusion to be
drawn from the testimony upon this point, and
from Boydens appearance upon the stand, was
that the company deserved to lose II they en-
MI aainina
be. At length, after considerable bantering aud
cheap talk on both sides. Boyden agreed to in
sure the hay calling the amount twenty-five and
one-haf tons, and valuing it at $3.50. The barn
and contents were burned on the night Of Septem-
Der "a 1879. The corn barn near the barn was
set on fire at the same time, and an effort was
made at the same time to burn the house by
means OF cloths saturated with kerosene, which
was not successful. Donahue was away from
home at this time, having gone to Montreal on an
excursion. Donahue and Mulaly were af.erward
indicted for burning the barn; but the indictment
was quashed, and the state has taken no further
action in the matter George NJ. Fisk OF North
field drew up the following notice October 16.
which was subscribed and sworn to by the plain
tiffs, and presented to the company within the
required time:
"srATE OF VERMONT, WASHINGTON COUNTY.
We. the undersigned, insured In the Windsor County
Mutual Fire Insurance Company In policy number rs ops
produce In Berlin Ia the barn owned by Mary Hurley
the Joint owners OF certain quantity OF hay stua-
ted in said barn and covered by said policy OF Insurance.
the night OF said day said was consumed BY
fire, and said hay burnt estimated worth $50 at
the price insured for and we claim for said hay from
said company"
The case for the defendant company was very
ably managed by Mr.. Warren c. French of Wood
stock, assisted by Mr.. Frank Plumley They set
up in their defence three principal points: First,
That the barn was either burned by the plaintiffs
or some one who was hired by them to do the act;
second, that Boyden was deceived about the hay
and insured II for more than Its vaue third,
that the proof OF loss did not meet the require
monts OF the company Section of the act OF
incorporation is as follows
In OF loss damage by happening TO any
member property insured therein, and
pany, the said members shall give in writing
10 the directors some OF Them the OF said
company within thirty days from the time such loss or
Article seven, section one, OF the bylaws says.
Any person who claims remuneration for by fire
shall forthwith give notice thereof In writing the ofee
particular account of such loss damage signed with
his hand and fortified by oath and n required by his
and other youchers and shall therein declare what other
Insurance.. II any has been affected the property
and whether he was the owner OF the property at the time
81 i. lns Sss Any %d or false swearing shall avoid all
But In spite OF these points the jury considered
the plaintiffs entitled to recover and returned
verdict for them OF $3.50 and costs. Messrs j. N |