Essex County herald. [volume] (Guildhall, Vt.) 1873-1964, 1885-03-27

aud "a covered carriage, Plaintiff
claimed that Mary E., wife of Charles
p. Palmer, had some money which she
inherited and held ia her own right;
that Charles p, being jeweler, was
unable to continue his business, owing
TO pecuniary embarrassments, and the
wife entrusted him with her funds to
continue the business, which he did
in substantially the same way that he
had previous to her investment, ex-
cept that he acted thereafter as her
agent. plaintiffs introduced an exc
cution in favor of one Maria Hill, on
which was sold the property in ques-
ton, previous to the taking by the
defendant; and also claimed that the
plaintiff in that execution bid off this
property, and gave it to said Mary E..
Defendant justified the taking as
deputy sheriff, on writ in favor of
the Merchants National Bank of St.
Johnsbury. Defendant objected to
the proceedings on which the exeeu-
ton was taken, because it was taken
on a confession of judgment in favor
of said Maria Hill without any specifi-
cation of her claim being filed. The
Court, for the purposes of this trial,
and in order to try the whole case,
overruled the objection. Defendants
claimed that the whole proceedings on
the part of the plaintiffs were fraudu-
lent, and done to hinder and delay
creditors, and that the property was
the property of Charles P, and also,
that if it belonged to his wife, Mary E..
in her own right, the suit should be
brought in her name, independent of
her husband. The Court submit
ted to the jury the question
whether these transactions were bona
tide on the part of the plaintiffs. The
jury returned a verdict for the plain
tiffs for the value OF the whole prop
erty. Case goes to the Supreme Court
On exceptions.
The next case was Eliphaiet s.
Wetherbee VS.. George B. Day. This
was an action of general assumpsit,
in which the plaintiff claimed about
$4,000 for money and farm produce
furnished the defendant to carry on
an eating house in Boston. Defend
ant claimed that plaintiff furnished
the same as & partner, and that the
same was lost, together with about
$4,000 which he (defD put in. The
question was squarely whether there
was an agreement between the parties
ny which plaintiff was to enter into
partnership. Defendant swore there
was, but plaintiff swore there was not
and that was the question the Court
submitted to the jury. During the
trial plaintiffs wife was offered az a
witness to prove what defendant
said to her, she being sent by plaintiff
to ask defendant why he didn't do
something about the matter. 1t was
claimed by defendants counsel that
inasnuch as the laws of Massachusetts
permitted her to testify, that the Law
of the place where the contract was
made should govern, instead of the
law of the forum. But the Court rul-
ed otherwise, and also held that the
wife in this case was not such an agent
of the husband as to permit her to
testify under our statutes. TO all OF
which plaintiif~excepted. Six persons
were naturalized, and three fled their
intentions. This was Judge Rowell's
first term in our county, and he con.
Quoted the business with marked abil.
ity. The quiet, pleasant, yet firm dig
nified and determined discipline which
he maintained, and the care and de
liberation with which he examined
and disposed of all matters before the
court, exceeded the most sanguine eX
pcctatons of his friends and admirers
who will hail his coming again at the
September term with the greatest
pleasure. The bar of the county con
graduate themselves that as they have
had able and impartial treatment in
the past, so they have full assurance
that it will continue in the future.
Thirteen cases were disposed of or
the old docket, and % new entries
made. OF the latter five were disposed
of, leaving the docket slightly larger
for the September term, as compared
with the present term.