The Windham County reformer. (Battleboro, Vt.) 1876-1897, 1882-09-29
WLNDHAM COUNTY COURT.
Jury Disagree IN the Wilcox Case
Haynes vs. HaYneS-Chase W. Chase.

, Jury Disagree IN the Wilcox Case
Haynes vs. Haynes-Chasc w Chase.
Judge Dunton has filed his report il
! the case of Mary II. Weatherhead Y
, Marcus and 6. Weatherhead. Tn,
case, which in various phases has beer
, through the probate and supreme court
is decided in favor of the defendant
trustees. The money was first entrusted
by them to Silas NJ. Waite, and after
: wards to the late Chas. N. Davenport
But before it could be got out Of Waite's
! hands one note against the late j. F
Burrows had outlawed. Burrows very
honorably renewed it, however, and in
view of this fact was not pressed for pay
ment, so that the result was that when
he died and his estate came to be settled
there was quite a loss. Several corners
of this kind had to be CUT but every
thing would, of course, been lost if Mr..
Davenport and the trustees had not made
their long fight to get it out of Waite's
hands. The controversy was whether
| in view of these facts they had saved the
property rs near intact as could reason
ably be asked. The court decides that
they had. A. Stoddard and Haskins &
Stoddard for plaintiff; Martin q Eddy
for defendants.
Tuesday noon, just two weeks since
the jury was empanelled, the Wilcox
Halifax case was concluded. The jury
was out all night ana discharged Wednes-
day noon unable 10 agree. 1t issunder-
stood that they stood to 5 and 5 to 7
on different ballots, and finally on the
question of giving verdict for Wilcox
W tn nominal damages, 10 to-.
Z. T. Haynes v. Philetus Haynes. This
was an action of assumpsit tn recover for |
freight on pillow, and for one-half use
of Ray pond water in the town of Will
mington. The plaintiffs evidence tend
ed to show that in 1871 he sold defend.
ant mill located about one-half mile
below said pond; that defendant went
into possession of the mill soon after, and
from that time until 1877 he used the
waller from the pond, then owned by G.
N. Davenport and plaintiff, and agreed
to pay reasonable compensation there
for. Defendants evidence tended to
show that at the time he bought the mill
p laintlff agreed that he might have the
Use OF the water from the pond until the
should be put in, which new
er had been done. Verdict for defend
an. S. T. Davenport, Martin & Eddy
or plaintiff; C. B. Eddy and o. E. But
eTneld Tor defendant.
Susan Chase v. Geo. Worden. This {
vas an action of replevin. Pa 'ntiff '
aims that in 1870 her brother, Aoram 6
:. Chase, owned buggy wagon that he
old to one Dix for $3.50; that soon af er
his she purchased the tie of her broth
n ard paid cash therefor on the face of :
he note; that about year after she '
ought the note Dix came to her and
1anted to trade her the wagon that she s
nally purchased it by giving up the
ote, Dix paving her $40 in cash that
ONE time in 1873 the wagon was attached Il
y Abrams creditors on debt against o
i'm. and was sold that in 1877 she a
armed where the wagon was, and sent
BRAN after it; that he got it and put it h
, a neighbours barn for plaintiff; that in a,
day or two the wagon was taken from d
le barn by Toilet from Abram F. who G,
,tained it until the plant IF replevined lc
in this suit. Defendants evidence A
'nded to show that these transactions
plaintiff were fraudulent; that in point al
fact Susan did not own the wagon. to
he case is still on trial and will go to W
lie jury some time to-day. o. E. and A. d,
6utterfield and c. B. Eddy for de-
n liant. a,
The next case for trial is that of Harry ~ u,
ell v. Frank P. Bell. The case of Miner NJ NJ
id Lazelle is settled by defendant pay AZ AZ
< plaintiff $50 and costs. The jury -, ~,
ses will probably continue one or two NJ
eeks longer. -,
What the States Atsnrnev savs W.