Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1885-03-20
WINDHAM COUNTY COURT.

In the OF DaUid L. Bemis Us. Central w. r. r.
Co., reported last week, the jury returned verdict
In favor of the defendants.
Stmuet H. YedD rs. TOWn Of Marlboro. Action
Tunpsit to recover for the support Of transient
poor person. The evidence the part of the plain
tiff tended to show that the last Of December 1881
one Lester Powers aged IL years, and OF NJ v. b.
Powers Of Marlboro went to plain tits house In Do
Yer aud was soon thereafter taken sick. That about
tue hrst of March the plaintiff called the
Of the poor Of Dover to provide for the boy. The
oyerseer Of Dover notified the Of the defend
ant town that the boy sick at plaintiffs, IN
need Of relief that his residence being in Marlboro
they should provide for him. March 18Th, 1882 b.
~ Whitney, the overseer Of the poor Of Marlboro,
called at plaintiffs house and agreed with plaintiff to
take care Of the boy aud the town would pay him at
the rate Of 81 per week therefor That he continued
to provide for the boy until his DEATH which occurred
July IS, 1882 The plaintiff claimed to recover by
virtue OF this contract for 10 liz weeks board at 81
per week.
The evidence on the part OF defendant tended to
show that the defendant town through its oyerseer
agreed to become responsible to the plaintiff for the
support and care Of the boy only IN the event the
father refused or neglected to pay for the same and
then only for such sum as 1t might be reasonably
worth That it was not worth "a per week to the
plaintiff inasmuch as the boys father was with him
and took Of him the greater portion Of the time,
or assisted in so dong that the father able to
pay for tue support of his son, willing do
and repeatedly offered to settle With the plaintiff
therefor, which Offers he refused to entertain It
also claimed that the agreement on the part Of de-
lendants overseer being collateral one, the town
was in no measure bound thereby.
The plaintiffs ev dence 10 rebuttal tended to show
tual thtnef was OF pecun-
larry meaps with which to provide for his son that
his condition in this respect well known to the
plaintiff and that he so Informed Mr.. whitney, the
overseer, on said 18th Of March, 1882, and that be
told Mr.. Whitney, he would have nothing whatever
to do with the father, whereupon the contract was
made as shown in bis opening testimony. That
while Mr.. Powers bad called on him aud requested
settlement, that be had never offered or rendered
payment therefor, and plaintiff had refused TO enter
lnto any negotiations with Powers, always relying
his contract with the defendants oyerseer That 10
September 1882, Oyerseer Whitney said TO the plain
tH to let Mr. Powers pay the bill II be would, aud
that II ne, Powers, didn't come aud pay him within
The next II days be- Whitney, would give plaintiff
order the treasurer OF defendant town for his pay
That Powers did not pay him, aud the town still neg
Letting to do So this suit was brought. Tue jury
rendered verdict for the plaintiff to recover sos
skins stoddard for plaintiff Martin 4 Eddy
for defendant.
Hyron Ward us Edtrard II. Ripley-Acton as
tampsit, plea the general issue, Offset and payment
The plaintiff is an artist and resident Of Putney
The defendant Is a resident of Rutland. The plain
tits evidence tended to show that he went to Rut.
land to prosecute his business and took rooms in q
building Of the defendant. That he painted por-
Trait OF defendants mother, for which he charged
5000 that II excellent portrait in workman
ship and finish and well worth the price charged.
That he did other small Jobs for the defend
Wuch 10 value were SUFFICIENT to pay for the rent OF
Of $500
The defendants evidence tended to show that It
was agreed that plaintiff should paint the portrait
Tor the sum OF $780, That plaintiffs other work was
done at the agreed price Of $50, making total Of
toO That the rent Of the rooms Of defendant oe-
eupled By the plaintiff worth S67, thereabout,
aud that be bad rendered sud paid into court for the
use Of the plaintiff, the balance due him, together
WITH all costs accrued up to time Of tender aud there
i9re be owed the plaintiff nothing. Verdict for
plaintiff, 1912.
u NJ. Tyler and c. B. Eddy for plaintiff, P. R. Ken.
dali, Haskins & stoddard for defendant.
The suit Of Edward Crosby Of Brattleboro against
Rev. Lewis Circuit for alleged libel has been icon
"nued' aud will not be tried at the present term.