Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1882-03-22
Washington County Court.

w. +. Gilett Of Fast Randolph and Sidney Wal
ace of Waterbury, Vermont. They with George
I. Smith and David W. Ramsdell Of Washington,
Jesse X. Sanborn Of wiliamsport Pennsylvania,
Ind Breezeport, New York, and Charles s. Wal
ace Of Waterbury, in 1876 OF 1877, formed them
'elves into a copartnershp under the high sound
ng name Of the United States IIulless Dat Com
'any. Mr. Sanborn was constituted the manag-
ng agent Of the concern and 1t Is believed that
his face pen, with talent almost equal to that
possessed by the renowned Colonel Mulberry
Sellers indted the swelling words Of the articles
Df copartnership Some OF the clauses are worthy
Of publication The first clause stated that the
individuals above named "do form themselves
into company to do the business of cultivating
and fitting for use, as food for man and feed for
animals and for seed, the grain known by the
name OF hull-ess oats, and find market for the
same In every portion Of the United States OF
America and in every other portion of the
world" The copartnership was to last FIVE
years, and that the turning in Of ten bushels Of
thirty-two pounds each should entitle the owner
thereof to share, and the object of the business
should be amongst other things. the "making
profit for themselves individually and coec-
lively" In this they are disappointed, but they
were 30 sure Of 1t at the time that they provided
that the treasurer should deposit the profits I" in
the name Of the company in some safe and
responsible financial institution or bank, or in the
of the United States" In order that |
the glad tidings of huess oat meal for the toilng
millions should now be sufficiently known, they |
provided that 1t shall be the duty Of the general
agent to learn Of and examine the different |
markets OF the world, and avail himself Of the |
best to learn Of the demand, and by all proper and
judicious means to increase the demand and make |
known its qualities and superiority without stint
or reserve" But anxious as they were to have
the world at large share the blessings OF hulless
oats they wanted to keep the profits to them
selves, so they solemnly agreed " 1t shall be
the duty Of the officers and members of the
company to keep profound secret the rules
and regulations Of this company together
with all its contracts and affairs OF whatever
kind or nature except to parties in interest
with the company to know" sanborn went to
work in 1877 and built gristmill at Breeze
port, New York, and run up bill with the
plaintiffs, for about thousand dollars, for hard
ware used in its construction lie paid portion
of it in money, gave note for $3.50, which has
never been paid and the plaintiffs now claim to
recover s6Ol and interest since April 18TH 1878,
when the account accrued There was no dispute
but what the plaintiffs furnished the goods to
Sanborn and they were used in the construction
Of the mill. The defence was mainly technical.
They claimed that they had been drawn into this
adventure and had never really had anything to
do with its operation This is undoubtedly true
end is an illustration OF the old adage, "Look
before you leap They went into this specula-
ton without due consideration and are now asked
" to step up to the captains office and SETTLE"
which they do not enjoy. There was clause
in the articles of copartnership, which provides
that the company shall not contract any debt
without the consent Of each member signified
over his own signature, which shall be done in
the presence of the secretary, who shall afiix his
seal thereto" 1t was conceded that neither of
the defendants had given their consent to the in
curing OF this debt to the plaintiffs by Sanborn,
and it WAS claimed by defendants counsel
that they were not therefore liable. But the
court overruled the point upon the ground that the
plaintiffs were not aware Of any such provision
in the articles of Incorporation; that the defend
ants had hired out to them as their general agent,
and that if the buying of those goods was within
the cope of his powers and duties as general
agent tHtn tilt usltuuduts tTt IL WIS dlfO
claimed that the action was barred because a
judgment had been obtained against the company
in New York on the same cause Of action; but the
plaintiff showed that that judgment had been va
Gated. The court left to the jury the question
whether the purchase OF the goods in question
was within the scope of Sanborn's powers and
duties as general agent, and whether the plain
tiffs sold them to him in good faith, relying upon
the credit of the company. Charles w. Porter
for the plaintiffs; W. p Dillingham; for Wallace,
Nelson L. Boyden for vinson and Gillett, w. A.
Boyce for Clark.
States Attorney Pitkin has set the following
criminal cases for trial: against Joseph Gravelin,
A. c. Dewey, Albert S. Sparrow, Freeman and II.
Roger Bixby, L S. Whitcomb, T. j. Murphy,
Jesse Cayhue two cases., Truman j Hunt
Montpelier rum cases. William Wallace Noyes,
for embezzling United States three per cent GER
tificate from the Montpelier National Bank; The
ophile Champeau, for stealing from the store of
L. r. Skinner of Montpelier
There are only sixty-nin new entries in the
law docket and only seventeen in the chancery
docket. OF the new entries in the law docket
seven are petitions for divorce. There is yet rea-
son for the Rev. Mr.. Dixie to labor
second case tried. Both parties are residents of
Waterbury Center. The plaintiff is the inventor
OF the Cooley mik-pan, and in 1878 and 1879
called on butter and skimmed-milk cheese fac
tory at Waterbury Center. The defendant fur
nished him with milk. The plaintiff testified
that in about the middle of the summer of 1879
he suspected that the defendant watered the milk
before delivering it to him. He made tests with
the lactometer and became sure that II was 80.
But to make an absolute certainty OF the matter,
on three different occasions, each time with diff
ferent neghbor, he went to the defendant prem
Uses, hid in a loft over the shed where the milk
cans were set, and there he and his witnesses saw
the defendant pour water into the cans after the
milk had been poured in. The neighbors in ques-
ton corroborated the plaintiff. The defendant
denied the charge, and said that he poured the
water, not into the cans, but into the barrels in
which the set, in order to cool the milk. The
defendant is a well appearing man, who is in
good standing with townspeople, and 1t is aston
shing that he should be guilty OF such petty
fraud. Mr. Dillingham; endeavored to explain the
testimony of the eyewitness away by arguing
that they were mesmerzed by Cooley, who told
them that they would see the defendant pour
water into the cans, and so impressed their minds
that when he really poured the water into the
barrels which surrounded the cans they believed
he poured it into the cans. II Cooley had Mr.
Dillingham's own powers of mesmerizing his
auditors by the spell of his eoquence, the theory
would be good one, but it did not appear that
he had. The action is brought under the provi-
sions Of an act passed in 1870 which says that any
one selling to a butter or cream mandatory
adulterated milk, shall forfeit for each offence
not less than S25 more than 800, for the bene-
fit Of the person upon which the fraud is COM
mitted. The jury found the defendant guilty of
four Offences and brought In verdict In favor OF
the plaintiff of S25S and costs S62 for last Of
fence. So 1t appears that selling watered milk is
six times as costly an offence selling watered
rum, the penalty for which is SO for each of
fence. The case will go 10 the supreme court
upon exceptions to the manner in which the dec
Rration was drawn. l.. +. Palmer and Charles
Dillingham; and q. +, Clough for the defendant
On Saturday Mr.. W f. Baker OF Mortified was
admitted to the bar Mr.. Baker studied for a
time with Mr.. Chas. W. Porter, Of Montpelier; but
for the past two years he has been student in
the office of Plumley Bates In Mortified.
Mr. Baker is a promising young man, and will
undoubtedly have successful career at the bar.
The pauper case OF Berlin rs. Montpelier will
not be tried having been set " not for the Jury "
by Berlin, whose officials, II is said, have discoy
cred that they must be beaten In court,
The next case for trial Is Charles Burgin rs
Gilman |. jackson, Barre case, in which the
plaintiff sues the defendant, u constable, 10 re-
cover goods which he claims were unawfully at
aaha and sold a l.r f.r