The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1884-04-09
Washington County Court.

Washington County Court.
J. W. Brock vs. Dan TarbeU-In this case,
which was reported in last weeks ISSUE the
court found that the payment made by Luke
Tarbell on the note on which he was the first
signer and Dan Tarbell co-assignOr, did not re-
move the statute bar as to Dan Tarbell, and
also that the payment in 1882 OF $75 by Dan
Tarbell, although not thus specifically applied,
would in law be applied to the extinguishment
OF the note on which the defendant was prn-
cipal. These were the only issues contested In
this case and, on rendition of the judgment,
the defendants attorneys made motion for
costs under section 1451, Revised Laws The
court granted the motion and allowed the de-
PENDANT to recover full costs Of this term, and
allowed the plaintiff to recover only for writ
| and service L. l.. Durant and George w.
Wing for plaintiff; John H. Senter and Zed S.
| Stanton for defendant.
Liberty 7. Kinney VS.. NJ S. Good,oia, appel
| liant (AsSltmpsiD. This was an action appealed
| from a Justices court, in which the plaintiff
| sought to recover for a balance he claimed on a
| bill of lumber which he had sold the defendant
| He claimed by his specifications to recover 1856
Judgment for plaintiff to recover 1913. On
the rendition of the judgment the defendant
| by his attorney filed motion for an appor-
| tionment of costs under section 1447 of the Re-
| vised Laws, which provides that in cases ap-
pealed by the defendant from the decision of a
Justice, when the plaintiff does not recover In
county court, exclusive OF interest and Offset a
greater sum than before the justice, the court
tween the parties With the court on this
question. W. A. & o. B. Boyce for plaintiff /;
| G. H. Heath for defendant
Luke c. Fisher vs.. " G.. Williams, appellant,
and School District No. 8, in CABOT, trustee,
and Lizzie Williams cldimdnt.-It appeared in
this case that in the year 1881 plaintiff was
prudential committee Of said school district;
that the defendant at that time was renting
| nd q dUa Of ho y,1o;p md
that the defendant had himself moved to
Montpelier; that his wife was about to move
there also, when the plaintiff hired a teacher
for the school in said district, who was per.
sonal friend of the defendants wife, the claim
ant in this case She Immediately applied to
plaintiff to board the teacher, and made a
trade to board her for so 10 per week. She
| expected to receive the pay herself, but the
plaintiff did not so understand it. At that time
the defendant was owing plaintiff something
| for the rent, and his wife continued to occupy
the house during the term of school. 1t APP
peared that the defendant furnished the table
| during this time, excepting few things fur
nished by claimants mother. At the close Of
the term Of school, the plaintiff brought suit
| against the defendant and trusted the dis
trict, seeking to hold this fund due for the
board from the district. The court held that
| the plaintiff could not reach this fund by the
trustee process, because the wife's labor was
commingled with the goods furnished by her
husband, and was for that reason exempt un-
| der the statute. Judgment for the claimant to
recover the fund in hands of the trustee
($22. SOY, with interest since September /, 1881,
and costs. Exceptions by plaintiff and cause
passed to supreme court S. G. Shurtleff for
plaintiff; j. P. Lamson for defendant and
| claimant.
Frank d Hardigan 10y neat friend) vs.. VII
liam Cdrter.-This was an action Of trespass
for assault and battery brought at the Septem-
Der (1SS3) term of this court 1t was set for
trial by the jury at the present term by the
| plaintiff The defendant set the case not fol
the jury and submitted to judgment, and il
was heard by the court now simply on the as.
sessment of damages. 1t appeared that the
plaintiff, a boy Of fourteen, was a son of John
Hardigan OF Montpelier that he was playing
with one of his mates, when he made some
sport of the defendant, man who has an i'm
pediment in his speech commonly called slut
tering) and, like all persons troubled that way
was very sensitive and quick-tempered. When
the boy Knocked him he at first reprimanded
him, them growing more angry, threw stitch
of wood at him, and finally picked up an iror
re.shovel and threw it at the boy, hitting him
on the head and inhicting scalp wound. The
plaintiff then went into his fathers house, and
the defendant started to go to Waterbury, but
was arrested on town grand jurors com
plant, brought before Justice o. d. Clark and
fined 500 Then this suit was brought. The
plaintiff claimed that his head was severely in
jured, and that he was now suffering from the
effects of the blow. The court remarked thai
this was a case of unprovoked assault anS
plaintiff for 800 damages and costs, and full
certificate. T. R. Gordon and W. A. Lord TO
plaintiff; George W. Wing for defendant.
Exams McCrillis vs.. Frank II. Allen, Appel
, ldnt.-This was an action of trover, to recover
for two hundred and thirty-four and one-hal
pounds of dressed chickens and one hundred
and eighty pounds of dressed turkeys, shipped
by the plaintiff, from Marshfield, to j. N
Austin & Co. of 118 South Market street, Bos
: ton, Mass, on the 10Th day of December, 1881
The plaintiff claimed that about a week befor
the poultry was shipped the defendant cam
to the plaintiffs house, presented card pur
! porting 10 be the business card of ]. N. Austil
& Co. of Boston, Mass, commission merchants
represented himself to be a silent partner Il
a the concern, and also represented that the firm
was good, and had some talk about buying tn
poultry of the plaintiff, but did not close an!
trade; he left tags and stencil plates OF tn
the firm; on the 10Th the poultry was shippe
= to the house to be sold on commission
!. and on the 22d letter was received from
a the firm acknowledging the receipt OF tn
a goods In good order. Also that no pay ha
q ever been received; that the firm was bogu
one; that the goods were obtained by the falls
representation of the defendant that he wa
: a member of the firm, when he was not, an
y OF the standing of the firm. The defendaI
did not introduce any evidence, but elaine
!, that the action should have been assumpsi
: and not trover, II any action could be mali
= tanned against him. Judgment for plaintiff
Q recover $68 04 and interest from December
u 1881. Certified execution granted. ], p. Ian
a son for plaintiff ]. A. and j. G. Wing for d.
PENDANT.
;, Divorce Cdses.--The divorce mill has bee
}. pretty steadily grinding for the past weel
o In the case Of Mary Lyman us. Cyrenus Ly
l. man, for intolerable severity divorce wa
A granted, and custody OF minor children give
h to libellant W. p. Dillingham; and G,
), Wing for libellant; c. H. Heath, G. +. ClouR
Is and Z. +. Palmer for libellee. Miner L. Smit
m | ys Mary Smith. diyOrcA pranted for adm