Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1886-03-19
WINDHAM COUNTY COURT


Samuel d. Williams as. FrdH6 EmersJli.--
This was an action to recover damages for
deceit in the sale Of horse. The evidence
in behalf of the plaintiff tended to show that
in August, 1855, he purchased of the defend
ant a horse at the price Of 40, Which borse
the defendant reprtst ntsd to be perfectly
sound and all right; that on the contrary
thereof said horse proved to be unsound,
having at the time of said sale two small
spavins which subsequently became vi,ible
and r,n iertd the horse OF less value to the
plaintiff The witnesses placed the damages
from $50 to SO. The evidence on the part
Of the def ndaut tended to show, that While
defendant knew OF no uusOuuduess in the
borse, he did not warrant said horse to be
sound, but told the plaintiff that If be bought
the horse be must take 1t just as he found It.
The jury returned verdict for the plaintiff
to recover S6l GS damages Waterman aud
G. b. Eddy for plaintiff Martin Il Eddy for
the defendant.
Wedihy w. ARderS0H rs. l. H. Allen.
Action Oh promissory note Of $500 dated
Dec. /. 1871. The defendant pleaded the
statute of limitations, to which the plaintiff
replied new promise in writing within six
years before suit was brought, and upon
which issue was joined. The defendant ad-
mitted the making of the note. The plain.
tiff then introduced in evidence a letter writ
ten by the defendant to her dated June 20,
1879, which letter, the court decided, consti-
tuted new promise to pay the note aud di-
rected the jury to return a verdict for the
plaintiff, to which ruling the defendant eH-
cepted and the cause was passed to the SUI
preme court Martin a Eddy for plaintiff,
Haskins a Stoddard and j. NJ. Tyler for de-
PENDANT.
John ". Moore Is. arthur ". M9WfeM -
This was an action on a promissory note of
Sli5, dated April II, 1879, aud endorsed $50
May TO- 1879. The defendant conceded the
execution OF the note but pleaded payment in
full by hand of his brother John II. Merri.
field. The defendants evidence tended to
show that the balance of S9j due on said
note wac paid by John H. Merrdeld July.I,
1879, by the delivery to him of check for
$50 and $50 in currency. This the plaintiff
denied Verdict for the defendant Haskius
Il Stoddard for plaintiff, Tyler and c. b. Ed
dy for defendant
Frank r. Hing err, Us Minnie l.. ind
Dennie +. Taylor, apis This was an appeal
FROM probate OF Catharine b. Kings will.
The defendants withdrew further opposition
and the will WAS duly allowed, and ordered
certified to the probate court. Haskins Il
Stoddard for plaintiff, Martin Eddy for de-
PENDANT
DummerSt0n Is. Geo. hAapp Action on
Ntlo " itNONth ptuhlAg VI hcAtuhuue
as one OF plaintiffs Listers. The plaintiff re-
fused to further prosecute the case and judg.
ment was entered for the defendant.
DummeTStOR as. j. ArmS Miller. This
was similar action against defendant as
lister, and judgment was entered for defend
ant.
Dummerston cs. S. ~ Harfck Action
brought to recover damages for transporting
a pauper into plaintiff town. This suit the
| plaintiff refused to further prosecute and
| Judgment was entered for the defendant
State as. VIM HOsodTd ami Nathan Hoo.
| ard Information for breaking and entering
the store of E. NJ. Butler in Jamaica aud
committing larceny therein, to which they
both pleaded guilty and were sentenced as
follows William to hard labor in states pris-
on three years and six months, and Nathan
to the same prison for two years and six
months.
State as. Angus Nc D0HdM, Complaint
for selling liquor to which respondent plead
ed guilty to IL offences and WAS fined $3.50
and COSTS
DicOrces Leila W. Taylor from Edwin
W. Taylor, Charles H. Frye from Jennie A.
Frye for adultery Fred H. Willard from
Flora L. Willard, Maggie A. Woods from
Leonard j. Woods for intolerable severity.