The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1884-04-16
Washington County Court.

the complainant in favor, nominally, of Randall
& Durant, but really in favor of L. L. Durant.
Before the suit was brought upon which the
Judgment was rendered the firm of Randall &
Durant had been dissolved, and Mr.. Durant,
having possession of the books Of the firm, pro-
ceeded to bring suits against various parties
who appeared from the books to be indebted to
the firm. Among those who were so unfortu-
nate as to have their names appear in this list,
either honestly or otherwise, was the COM
plainant 1t appeared by the complainant's
testimony that her husband had been soldier,
and that after his death Durant told her he
could obtain bounty for her; that he would
take the case, and charge her nothing unless he
succeeded; that the bounty case failed, and she
heard nothing more from Durant until this suit
was brought; that on the service of the writ
she employed G. II. Heath and, with her wit
nesses, prepared for battle; that on the return
day of the writ, at the hour and place, which
was nine o'clock A. M, at Durants office. she
that the office Of G II. Heath was on the same
floor as Durant's office; that they stayed there
and frequently tried the door until long after
eleven O'clock A. M, and could not gain admit
tance; that she went home, and heard no more
of the matter until Durant brought his suit on
the Judgment, five years and six months after
this time; that she then brought this complaint
to set aside the judgment. She was cor
roborated by c. III. Heath, Mr. Wells of Cabot,
and others. The defendant Durant, testified
that the justice came to his office at nine clock
on the day in question, defaulted the defend
ant, Kimball, and went away upon the under
standing that II she appeared he was to be
called; that his office was kept open all of the
time, and that no appearance was made by
her; that he did not take her case on contin-
gent fees. He was also corroborated by one
Harris, who was at that time a student in his
office; he remembered the whole business as
we'll as he used to remember Chitty's Plead
ings, which he used to claim he read at the
rate of sixty pages per hour. He swore the
Office was open all Of the forenoon, and no ap-
pearance was made by Mrs. Kimball or anyone
for her. The court put it on the ground of for
getfulness, out of charity, no doubt and rem
dered judgment setting aside the judgment,
with one cent damages. G. III. Heath for COM
plainant L. L. Durant and G. w. Wing for
defendant.
George ". Mann vs.. Russell & Kelli1,er, ap-
pelldntS. was an action of assumpsit
brought upon an appeal from Justices court
at Barre The plaintiff owns a stone-cutters'
shop at Barre, which he had rented to the de-
fendant firm, who are also stone-cutters. Out
of their occupancy of the shop, the use OF
plaintiffs tools and the leaving of some granite
on the land Of the plaintiff, and divers Other
small things, aggravating in their nature to both
parties, the suit was brought After patient
hearing by the court every item but one in
each account was disallowed, and Judgment
rendered for the plaintiff to recover 81 damages
and 81 COSTS c. H. Heath for plaintiff; W. A
& o. B. Boyce for defendants.
p. Belkndp (soruiuing partner) Vs. r. L
Archer, appellant This was an action of bool
account. s. c. Shurteff, Esq, was appointed
auditor, who reported to the court that tn,
settled with note, and that the note had beer
| paid. Judgment on the auditors report TO
| the defendant to recover his costs. This cas-
| was entered at the September term, 1875, ant
| at first involved an account of only about $27
]. N. johnson was attorney for the plaintiff
| up to this term of court, when he withdrew
and w. F. Baker took the case in hand ]. w
Rowell and Heath & Carleton for defendant.
Ne,ohaU C Stebbins vs.. L. T. Kinney an,
| George MileS.--This was an action Of trespas
and trover for circular saw-mill, heard on al
agreed statement of facts. 1t was agreed tina
the plaintiffs had made an attachment on tn
real estate Of the defendant, Kinney, on whicl
was a mill, and in the mill was the circula
saw-mill in question, set for use and in use a
that time; that after the attachment the de
| fendant, Kinney, mortgaged the circular saw
mill to the defendant, Miles; that the suit o.
which the attachment had been made was car
ried to final judgment, execution issued an
| levied on the real estate attached, and set of
according to law. In the meantime the circu
lar saw-mill was removed from the mill by tn
| defendant, Miles, under the mortgage, whe
this suit was brought. The plaintiffs elaine
that this mill was part of the realty, and a
such was holden under the attachment whic
was prior to the mortgage. The defendar
| claimed it was personal property, and that tn
attachment of the real estate made no lien o
the circular saw-mil. Judgment pro forna fo
the defendants. Pitkin & Huse for plaintiffs
c. j. Gleason for defendants.
d. p. Wal,oorth, administrator vs.. L. I
Barron. This was an action on note. Judl
ment for plaintiff, clerk to assess. Heath
rnr lkav, foa tns- II I,sk
Wing for defendant.
This was an action of trover brought to recovt
for a quantity of hemlock bark. 1t was II
ferred to E. F. Palmer, who reported the fact
which, in substance were: That Mr.. Tubs
who was acting as the agent of his mother, wa
living on farm in Moretown on which ther
were several mortgages. The first one, Il
81, 800, WAS held by the Holden estate of Mic
dlesex; the second was given to secure the lii
support of Robert and Mary Prentice and the
funeral charges; the third was held by Stillma
Kelton OF Montpelier The condition ws
broken in both the first and third mortgage
Mr.. Tubs had cut the hemlock trees frol
which came the bark in question for the pu
pose of converting them into lumber for repai
ing the buildings and fences on said farm, an
the lumber was so used. He sold the bark
the plaintiff, and used all of the money he II
ceived from the sale of the same to provide fo
and to pay the funeral charges of the NOR
gagee, Robert Prentice, who died about thu
time. The plaintiff moved the bark on
another mans premises, where 1t was attache
by the defendant as sheriff, on a writ in fav,
Of the owner of the third mortgage, Stillms
Kelton. The bark was sold by Sheriff Tutt
on the execution following the writ, and IL
plaintiff brought this suit. The defendan
claimed that, as the condition in the mortgae
was broken, he had the superior lien ON Il
bark. The plaintiff claimed that, as all Il
proceeds OF the hemlocks trees went ON to IL
farm, and those of the bark to carry out IL
provisions of perior mortgage, and as 1t ws
all in good faith, it defeats the lien of the d
fendants mortgage. With the court. f.
Heath and w. P. Dillingham; for plaintiff 7
J. Deavitt for defendant
Moses f. Hotodrd vs. Boynton g. Moseleu.-
This was an action Ct general assumpsit X,
ferred to NJ E. Smile and John II. Senter wi
reported that the plaintiff was indebted TO IL
defendants in the sum of 81. Judgment on I'll
report for defendant. t. X. Gordon and II. {
Kemp for plaintiff; Frank Plumley for d
PENDANTS.
II. o. Camp vs.. L. W. Scott-This was I'll
assault and battery case from Barre in whiC
the jury returned a verdict for &c. and IL
plaintiff moved for certified execution, whcl
II granted, would have carried full costs III
motion was denied.
NOrthfeld SaUings Bank VS.. Ellis and Sa,
derS appellants. was an action ON not
and was tried this term of court by Jury, VIII
rendered verdict for the defendants Th
case has already been reported fully in thes
columns. The case was heard by the coul
after the verdict on plaintiff 8 plea to the jur
diction. Section 1860, Revised Laws, provide
that no appeal shall be allowed party in a
action on note for a sum less than $40 unles
l 4.