The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1883-09-26

made her will, giving the use OF one-fourth Of
her property to Charles f. Wood, one-half the
remainder to Aida Woodbury., the plaintiff,
and the other half to John w. Alger and Clara
Belle G. Alger, both of Saratoga, N. Y, and
appointing Leander Warren of Middesex, ex-
ecutor of the will. On the oath day Of Decem-
ber 1881, said Lydia M. Warren made codicil
to the above will, setting forth that the said
John W. Alger had deceased, and revoking
that portion OF the will relating to his share,
and giving the same to G. E. Wood and Aida
Woodbury.. The witnesses to the codicil we're
L. L. Durant, s. G. Shurtleff and P. II. Hinck-
ley The will and the codicil we're presented
for probate January 7, 1882, and on the 9th
day Of January II. W. Heaton and j. V. Bah
cock testified to the genuineness of the sigma
lures OF the witnesses to the will, j. 2. G. Cot
trill, G. NJ. Rublee and Joseph A. Prentiss and
the same was allowed On the 11th day Of
March, 1882 hearing was had before the pro-
bate court with reference to the validity OF the
codicll, and after hearing the evidence it was
adjudged that the same shonld be disallowed,
from which an appeal was taken to the Wash
| ington county court, and the same was entered
at the March term, 1882. The contertants of
the codicil claim that at the time OF making
| the same the testator was by reason OF old age
| and mental infirmity incompetent to make a
will, and that she had been unduly Influenced
| by parties in interest The jury returned
| verdict sustaining the codicil-thus establishing
the whole of the will Messrs. Ptkin & Huse
and s. C. Shurtleff for plaintiff, George w.
| Wing for defendants.
The case OF Nathaniel Perry u.s. Harvey S.
Dow was next called. This was an action Of
| trespass and trover brought to recover the value
| OF some personal property sold by the defend
| ant and upon which the plaintiff had chattel
mortgage. The defendant offered to prove
| that the chattel mortgage was given without
| consideration and was therefore void, and that
he had license from the plaintiff to dispose of
the property. Counsel for the plaintiff argued
| that such license should have been pleaded
specially and that the defendant was precluded
from taking advantage of his own fraud to
| avoid his liability for selling the property
without the consent of the mortgagor in writ
ing. The court sustained the view OF the
plaintiff, Exceptions allowed and case passed
to supreme court. J. p Lamson appeared for
plaintiff, S. c. Shurteff for defendant.
Clinton French, by his next friend Us. Frank
Emerson. This was an action of trespass for
an assault and battery. The plaintiff claimed,
and his evidence tended to show that on the
morning of the 8th day of January, 1883, he
attended, for the first time that term, the
school in district No. in Barre, known as
East Barre, that on the afternoon Of that day
while the boys were out at recess, he, the
plaintiff, was standing in the entry, that the
school room door was ajar, and that one Of the
pupils, Harry Ingram passed by him to 60
took hold Of the Ingram boys coat tail and
said to him, " hold on" that the Ingram boy
then went into the school room, that the de-
fendant, who was the teacher of the school,
came out into the entry seized the plaintiff by
the hair of the head dragged him to the school
room door, then took hold of his coat collar
brought him into the school room, theI
, knocked him down twice and then threw him
against the desk and cut his head, and that be
in consequence Of the injuries thus received
3 was made sick and confined to his bed fol
eighteen days. The defendant claimed thai
the Ingram boy was In the school room wher
the plaintiff pulled him back, and that it dis
turbed his school, that he went and spoke Il
the defendant and told him to come in, tina
he did not start and that he did take hold Of hi
] hair but did not start him out Of his tracks
: that he then led him into the school room, ant
cuffed his ears with the fiat OF his hand severa
. times, that the plaintiff then said to him, Z"
was only fooliDg and have done nothing
s should be punished for" that he then seize,
Il him again and shook him sharply and tha
= when he let go of him he fell to the floor. Tn
;. defendant admitted that the plaintiff lay o.
Q the floor few minutes, then got up, went t
y his seat and then went home without sayin
: anything to the teacher or the teacher anythin
y to him; that there was blood on the floor an
8 on the boys forehead There was considers
BILE contradictory evidence as to the transactio
. and as to the plaintiffs injuries, and muc
:, feeling shown in the case. Evidently it was
4 school district row. Verdict for defendant.
G. Wing and John II. Senter for plaintiff; "
|, A. and o. B. Boyce for defendant
Now ON trial, j. W. Leonard u.s. Achsa Dut
ton. The parties live in Calais and the suit
!. for trespass involving a small piece Of lane
y J Shurteff and Kemp for plaintiff Lamso
. and G. w. Wing for defendant.