The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1884-07-02
Orange County Court.

doubleday. special verdicts in this cause
we're disposed Of by the jury partly in favor Of
the plaintiffs and partly of the defendant
Taken as whole, however, the judgment to
be entered upon the special findings will be
tantamount to a general verdict for the plain
tiffs for about half their claim. The case goes
to the supreme court with some knotty legal
points to be decided.
r. IT. Hartman VS.. Curtis.--Action on the
case predicated upon section 4,193 Revised
Laws, which provides an action by the owner OF
any lot In cemetery against any person who
shall wilfully and maliciously injure any tree,
etc., there located. The plaintiff owned a lot
in a certain cemetery situated in the town OF
Orange. The present action was TO recover
damages for the malicious cutting Of the
branches OF two cedar trees which the plaintiff
had set out on his burial lot, inferred in which
were the remains OF plaintiff young son. The
defendant did not deny cutting the trees, or
one of them. He testified that he did 80 in
good faith and without malice II appeared
that the defendant, with others interested, had
met at the cemetery on the day in question, by
a preconcerted plan, to clean up the place,
which had been long neglected and did not
present decent appearance. He saw the trees
on Harriman's lot, but was entirely Ignorant
whose lot it was. Between him and Hartman
an old feud existed, and had he been aware Of
the ownership he would have given the place a
wide berth. But, observing the long struggling
branches Of the cedars. he commenced to trim
them, and while so doing was informed whose
trees he was cutting. Being madea aware of that
fact, he at once desisted. He testified that
what he did really improved the appearance OF
the lot, and in this he was corroborated by
several witnesses. The plaintiff claimed $50
damages. The jury were long time dis
agreed, but finally returned and gave the
plaintiff a verdict for one cent damages. o.
b. Boyce and Dudley G. Denison for the
plaintiff; Charles II. Heath and K. M. Harvey
| for the defendant.
| Abigail +. Bdgley vs. Ar1drelo McFdrland.-
| In this case the plaintiff sought to establish
the title in herself to yoke Of oxen, an ox-cart
| and certain farming TOOLS taken by the de-
| fendant and retained by him as the property OF
| plaintiff son, for whom defendant claimed to
| be the guardian, and as such to hold the prop
| erty in question. The property was recovered
from the defendant in December, 1883, by
| writ OF replevin. By reason Of old age and in
firmity, the plaintiff was unable to be present
| in court, and her deposition was read. She
claimed to own the property in question: and
denied 1t was ever her sons. The son also
testified to the same effect. The defendant
| introduced several witnesses, who gave evi-
dence OF certain admissions and claims Of the
son to the ownership of the oxen and cart.
Defendant also relied on the tax-lists OF the
town Of Corinth, in which the son, Frank Bag
ley, had sworn to his title in the property. 1t
| was as guardian for Frank that Mcfarland At
tempted to justify his detention of the prop
erty, and by virtue of which he sought its
return to satisfy certain claims against Frank.
In support of his claim to the position of guar
dian he offered in evidence written instrument
from the probate court of his appointment as
such. But this document was met and over
come by another, from the same source, annul-
ing the effect of the former and declaring it
was issued to him without legal foundation.
Hence his attempted justification fell through,
and nothing was left but to admit defeat. The
court, on motion Of the plaintiffs counsel,
ordered verdict for her, and damages were
agreed upon without submitting that question
to the jury. Verdict for plaintiff for So 80
damages and costs. R. M. Harvey and Phineas
Chamberlain for the plaintiff; J. II. Watson,
J. X. Darling and E. w. Smith for defendant
Moses Spear vs.. Daniel B. Emerson. In this
action the plaintiff, a resident Of Vershire,
sought to recover of the defendant a balance OF
money in the hands OF the latter, derived from
the sale of the plaintiff wool in the years 1876
and 1877. 1t appeared that in the years men
toned the plaintiff, in the name OF the defend.
ant, sent large quantity OF wool to the house
,, of Fenno, Son & Manning commission mer
chants OF Boston, to be sold by them. The evi
dence disclosed that the parties made a contract
! touching the business, but as to just what that
contract was they did not agree The plaintiff
claimed, in substance, that the defendant was
to take this wool and ship it as agent for him
| (the plaintiff This was done because the de-
fendant knew about the commission houses in
Boston, their responsibility, etc., and thi:
knowledge the plaintiff did not possess him
| self, and 80 relied upon the defendant. Ht
only sought the aid of the defendant in order
to be assured he should get the pay for his wool
The only real controversy between the parties
, was as to the terms of the agreement between
r them. The defendant claimed as part Of the
contract between him and plaintiff, he was tC
guarantee to the latter payment for the wool
and that the plaintiff was to look to him there
for. Moses denied this, and said he had no ides
! Of looking to the defendant for his pay. Th'
8 testimony of the plaintiff tended to show
! that the commission merchants had remitted tc
) the defendant, as the avas of the wool, aftel
r deducting commission and expenses, 81, 500 SO
. that the defendant had paid plaintiff at differ
3 ent times S7,235. The balance should be &C
, counted for to him, he insisted, less such sun
s as the jury should allow Mr.. Emerson for th'
: part he performed in effecting a sale of tn,
8 wool The defendant denied receiving as mucl
as claimed by the plaintiff. He testified thai
he had sent to the plaintiff all that was hi
, due, and had only retained sufficient to pa,
/. him his commission (which he put at two cent
!. per pound) and his expenses incurred touching
, the business in hand No amount was pro
a a vided by the agreement between the partle
: what the defendant was to receive, and th'
. matter was left with the jury, under instruc
a tions from the court, to say what he shoul'
: have. The jury allowed him about hundre,
: dollars and returned a verdict for the plaintiff
2 for S522. A motion for certified execution |
: : filed with the clerk, but 1t Is not yet granted
! as exceptions take the cause to the suprem
= court. A. NJ. Dickey and G. H Heath for tn
> plaintiff; S NJ Pingree and Dudley c. Denisol
= for the defendant
8 State Va. Charles and asa Mdgoon.
respondents were indicted for burgarious en-
@ tering of the house OF d. Gates Blake of Wash
IS ington and stealing knife aud a set Of sleigh
= bells thersfrom. The point was made by tn
y respondents counsel that they could not b
a convicted of burglary, because the house int
IT which it was alleged they entered was not
n "dwelling house" as no one lived in 1t, no
d had any person for several years; nor was 1t
> "storehouse within the meaning OF tn
n statute The position taken by respondent:
l. counsel In this behalf WAS sustained by tn
>. court, and the case proceeded in the trial 70
n the larceny of the knife and sleigh-bells, tn
s former valued at ten cents and the latter at tw
l. dollars and fifty cents. The testimony on th
o part OF the state tended to show that th
d respondents took the articles in question Mi
o Blake testified to having met the two Magoor
n near by the place where the property was KEEP
T. and under circumstances of suspicious nature
Q, The defense was a general denial of any takin
or breaking, or anything OF the kind. 1t wa
not contradicted that the respondents were nes
40 the place. as described by Mr., Blake on tn
20 night referred to by him. They accounted fo
~ their presence there by saying that their hors
~ ~ was sick, and they had got out OF their WACO
~ to give the horse a rest. While they wer
80 80 seated in the road waiting for the horse
s sa start on again, Blake came up TO them, as
10 had stated, They pissed the usual greeting
;, with him, and went on towards home. BI
" they did not see any bells, or any knife, or an
~ sleigh, and pursued their innocent course HON
W III oasa ,yant to tha iurv Mond aftarnnoI