Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1882-04-19
Washington County Court.

Court was adjourned "without day" at three
O'Clock last Thursday afternoon It's end was
peaceful and happy, and It's lIfe-work will be en-
balmed in the records OF the clerk.
Only one divorce was added to the unusu-
ally brief record which has been already published:
II. r. Chamberlain OF Mortified from Charles r.
Chamberlain, for refusal to support Thecustody
Of her two children, Charles II. and Lulu Maud,
was given to the petitioner.
The court decided the cases which were noticed
In last weeks paper a. having been tried and de-
cision reserved;
Gilman Bill Us. Robert L. Dow. Both parties are
residents Of Woodbury., and the defendant was In
1873 and 1879 the collector OF school district No.
10 in that town. The suit arises ont OF district
quarrel At the March meeting Of 1873 the town
voted TO consolidate districts Nos. 4 and 10, under
the name OF district No. 4. On the 18th OF May,
the same year, at another meeting, the town
voted to rescind its action and to allow the dis
tricts to reorganize rs before. Acco rdingly in
district No. IL, OF which the plaintiff was resi-
dent, meeting was warned by the selectmen,
held and adjourned to certain date without the
transaction OF any business. Meanwhile another
meeting was duly warned by the selectmen, held,
and the district organized. Under this organiza-
ton in 1879 tax OF Sl3 80 was assessed upon the
plaintiff, and also in 1880, which he did not pay.
The defendant took horse from the plaintiff, in
satisfaction, which the plaintiff repevied, and
thus brought into issue the legality OF the taxes
Many technical objections are raised to the meth
DDS OF making and swearing to the lists, etc. but
the main question is as to the lawfulness OF call
ing new meeting when another meeting was de-
pending upon an adjournment as related above
The court held that the tax was valid and that the
defendant should have the horse back, with his
costs. The case will probably go to the supreme
court. Messrs. Heman f. Carter (of South Hard
wickl j. T. Lamson and j. A. wing, Tor the plain
TIL messrs. L. d. Hathaway and o. u ehurteh'
for the ueiendant'
Inc Town oil Berlin Us. samuel u Chandler
appellant ms was most RIDICULOUS SUIT which
the freemen OF Berlin ordered to be brought by
solemn vote In town meeting assembled. Inc
defendant was formerly eoverseer OF the poor OF
Berlin. during MS term oil ONCE he boarded a
pauper with Emerson Hill, and as installments oil
his pay gave him town order oil $40 and town
order OF $40. When he settled with the town he
charged these items as cash and received credit
therefor Meanwhile Hill had transferred the or
ders TO Mr. carlyle D. Gleason oil montpelier, and
at sometime alter the settlement with Chandler
1t transpred that the orders were In existence
After consideraoie sur IN town the matter was
submitted 10 messrs' joel roster IT,, ana oharles
L. Saoin' as arpitratofs, VINO iouhd tnat Chahdie'
| owed the town go Ohandier pought the oroers
oil Gleason ana proposed 10 pay the aroitrators
Judgment with them' dispute arose ABOUT the
payment Oh interest," ana inc present SUIT grew ou'
Oh that' Ns righteousness consists IN tne small
ness oi Tue sum in'oiVeu' MT hirain A. muse
| the JUSTICE gave Judgment In iaVor Oh inc pam
| tln ior t"enty-iour Genus ana cos's mot more
| than so) iroh which the ueienoaht appeaieu
Inc county court NO" ueciues tua' tne Piaintin
Shal recover n''een cents ana 'hat neithei party
shail recover any costs since the trai In the Jus
tees court messrs. Heath carleton LOT TN
plaintiff; Mr.. j. D Livingston for the defendant
| The National Bank oil Barre u.s. George Merrill
appellant. In 1877 or 1878 the cabot carriage
Company sold the defendant, carpenter ant
joiner at West Danville, wagon, in payment
whereof he gave his note for $50, payable in sil
months from date. Buchanan one OF the mem
bers Of the carriage company, so the defendan
testified, told him that II they should order an!
goods OF him, their prices might be applied
| po"arus the payment Oh inc notei anu uurinR I'd
ensuing summer and fall-the note was given II
April-they did procure SOS 80 worth OF goods
windows, for the most part After the note wa
overdue it was transferred by Hector Britt, tn
bookkeeper oil the carriage company, to the Ma
tional Bank OF Barre, which now sues to recove
Its face and interest No Endorsement OF tn
prices OF the goods obtained, as above mer
toned, had been endorsed upon the note. Tn
plaintiff met the obvious and fatal objectio
that the note had been transferred to tn
bank after 1t was due, by introducing testimon
tending to show that the carriage company ha
transferred 1t to Britt-who was in some une,
planned manner its assignee-before maturity
and that Britt had passed it over to the banl
This was the principal question in the case, 70
the PLAINTIFF claim about tho application OF tn
goods was hardly controverted. The court foun
that the note was transferred directly from tn