The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1885-10-07
Washington County Court.

Hiram III. Bean as. George Daniels
case was on trial when we went to press last
week and was an action of trespass for false
imprisonment, brought against the tax col
lector of the town of Woodbury. by the plain
tiff for his wrongfully imprisoning him for
refusing to pay a tax assessed against him by
the town of Woodbury.. The plaintiffs
claim was that he was not resident OF
Woodbury. on the LIST day of April in the
year he was assessed in Woodbury., but that
he moved from that town to the town of
Calais on the last day of March; that he
was listed in the town of Calais and had
paid his taxes in that town. The defendant
claimed that the removal of the plaintiff
from the town of Woodbury. was only sub
terfuge and that his real residence was
Woodbury.. Verdict for the plaintiff to re-
cover S1696 and his costs. George W. Wing
for the plaintiff; S. G. Shurtleff and JOSEF b
Z. Lamson for the defendant.
e. l.. x III. W. Smith rs. Luke Fisher
This was an action of general assumpsit,
brought to recover balance claimed to be
due upon lumber contract. The plaintiffs
claimed, and their evidence tended to show
that they made a contract with the defend
ant to sell him at Kinney's mills, in Marsh
field, large quantity of hardwood lumber
which was in the log, the plaintiffs to give
directions as to the saving of said lumber
and to have the right to throw out one-fourth
of the same, and that the defendant had not
taken the three-fourths which he had agreed
to take by the contract. The defendant
claimed that the plaintiffs had broken their
contract by substituting some other and diff
| ferent logs for the ones that he bought;
that he had already taken three-fourths of
the lumber, and that it was not sawed as
| he directed but about one-eighth of an inch
thicker than he ordered. Several questions
were raised by the defendant as to whether
| this contract was within the statute of frauds.
| Joseph =. Lamson for the plaintiffs: John
G.. Wing and w. p. Dillingham; for the de-
fendant. Verdict for the plaintiffs to recover
| 1922 damages and their costs. Exceptions
by the defendant.
Edgar Wheeler Us. Charles w. Hackett.-
This was an action of trover and trespass
| brought to recover one old mare, which the
plaintiff claimed that he sold to the defend
dant for certain work to be done drawing
| wood, which the defendant was to do; that
he (the plaintifD reserved parol lien upon
the horse until paid for; that he had taker
the horse upon this parol lien into his OWL
possession for breech in the condition by
the defendant; that after he had taken the
horse into his possession he started fol
Montpelier and met the defendant, who
proceeded to unhitch the horse from hi:
sleigh and to retake the same into his pos
session. And for this retaking and deten
ton this suit was brought. The suit wa.
first brought before p. II. Hinkley, wht
rendered judgment for the plaintiff, from
which the defendant appealed. The de
fendant claimed that there was no parol lieI
served upon the horse, and that he had full
filed the contract as fast as he agreed to
He admitted taking the horse from tn,
plaintiff, but insisted that he had a right t,
do so, as it was his property. The plaintiff
also claimed that he had hired the horse t.
go to Montpelier, and that if the jury 81
found, the defendant had no right to TAX
the horse, and his attorney requested TIN
court to so charge, and the court so charged
the jury, and at the same time reminde,
the jury that the two claims made by tn
plaintiff were very inconsistent. Verdic
for the defendant to recover his costs. Cor
don & Gary and John G.. Wing for the plain
tiff George w. Wing and w. A. Lord TO
the defendant.
At the conclusion of this trial the cour
took recess until Tuesday, October 18th
when it is expected that the trial of crimina
causes will begin.