The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1884-07-16
Orange County Court.

Several cases on the jury calendar, by agree
ment were set to the court for trial and
heard last week.
Martin Green Us. Alonzo Chadwick.
was an action OF assumpst to recover the value
of parlor organ sold to the defendant, on the
installment system. Judgment for plaintiff, S31,
F. H. Hartman Us M. W. Waterman.-The
plaintiff in this case is pretty well known in
Orange county court as an established litgant,
the present docket showing three cases in his
name. The present action was one Of trespass
qugre cldusunl. The question at issue was the
location of certain dividing line between the
parties. The plaintiff claimed an old spot
line, along which he had built fence, and the
defendant claimed the line elsewhere As to
just where this line in reality should be the
court was unable to decide, inasmuch as the
parties introduced no proof in that behalf
that enlightened the court. The location Of
| the line seemed to come into the case in an in
cidental manner, rather than as main ISSUE
1t appeared by the evidence that some small
trees were cut by the defendant and his hired
man. line was run by surveyor at one
time, and it appeared that some of the trees
were cut south of this line. Inasmuch as the
defendant did not claim possession south of the
| line in question the case was decided in favor
Of the plaintiff. The testimony on behalf of
the defendant was to the effect that the trees
cut were of no commercial value The plaintiff
claimed $25 damages and the court awarded
| him So. Charles II. Heath for the plaintiff; o.
B. Boyce for the defendant
In the case of George Downer, a petition to
be allowed an appeal from the decision Of
| justice who had declined to allow 1t, the court,
upon hearing, granted the request OF the petit
toner, and the case was entered on the docket
of the county court. The action was predi-
Gated upon a certain promissory note given by
Cove g. Harrington to the petitioner, Downer.
In opposition to the petition 1t was urged that
the case was Of such nature as not to be In
Ind cd int in xuhi r,nax ha nj
lowed under the statute. Tarbell for the petit
toner; R. M Harvey for the defendant.
P. E. and Warren L. Crafts Us. Henry B.
White.-The defendant WAS constable and col
lector Of the town Of Topsham, and levied on q
yoke of cattle belonging to the plaintiffs valued
at $50. The cattle were sold by the defendant
TO satisfy tax assessed against the plaintiffs
The notice of the defendant was objected to
by the plaintiffs counsel as defective, and the
admission OF any testimony on the ground Of
justification was objected to. The court held
that the notice was insufficient, whereupon the
defendants counsel moved for continuance,
In order to file an amended notice. The case
was then continued at the defendants expense
John ii. Watson for the plaintiffs; j. K. OAR
ling and R. M. Harvey for the defendant.
John Sprague Us. Royal Abbott, Jr.-This
action, like the last, was one in which the
plaintiff complained OF certain taxes assessed
against him, to satisfy which property was at
tached by the officer and sold. The ruling of
the court in the last case effected disposition
of this. Defendants notice was as defective
as in the preceding case, and continuance
was asked for and granted on the usual terms
between the parties. Charles H. Heath for the
plaintiff; F. v. Randall and d. c. Denison for
the defendant.
ii. T. Chickering Us. John Hartwell-This
was an action OF assumpsit In which the plant
If sought to recover the amount Of freight
charges on two carloads of potatoes. 1t APP
| naarad that tho dafandaut had ranuaatad "a
potatoes, which were billed to Boston, stopped
and delivered at Lowell, at which place the
plaintiff was station agent for the Boston &
Lowell railroad The testimony OF the plant
road company for the freight charges, and
30 he brought action to recover the same In his
own name The plaintiff had in fact paid the
amount OF freight charges to his company.
Judgment for plaintiff, $50 and interest. Farm
ham and Chamberlain for the plaintiff ]. K.
Darling and j. ii. Watson for the defendant.
The following divorce cases were heard and
disposed Of Lizzie Blake Us. Charles Blake;
the parties resided at Mortified and were
married in 1882; bill granted for refusal to
support; petitioner may resume her maiden
name; G. ii. Heath for petitioner. Effie A.
had in this case and the proof being insufficient
to warrant granting bill, the court was about
to dismiss the petition; counsel asked for q
continuance, which was granted; Perrin and
McWain for petitioner Jennie A. Bagley Us.
j. +. Bagley; parties are residents Of Bradford
and were married in 1871 bill granted upon
the ground OF intolerable severity j. X. Oar
ling for the petitioner and r. M. Harvey and
Phineas Chamberlain for ]. +. Bagley Will
liam L. Willis Us. Arabel Z. Willis; bill granted
upon the ground OF adultery; r. NJ Harvey
for petitioner Eliza A. Cook Us. Leander p
Cook; evidence was the same as In the Last
named; but the court refused bill Of divorce
because Mrs. Cook had herself been guilty OF
the same crime; X. M. Harvey for petitioner
Court adjourned sine die on Thursday, the
10th, after session Of nearly six weeks.