Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1886-09-27

by going about duty he assumes that he
is competent to perform it, he only as
Stunning the dangers that are ordinarily to
be run. There were three questions in the
case: First, was the machine ordinarily
safe? Second, did the company know the
machine was unsafe? Third, did the
plaintiff receive his injury from a defect
in the machine? These questions were
largely to be determined by the evidence.
The jury did not agree, standing, it is re-
ported, seven for plaintiff, and five for de-
PENDANT. Thompson and Prouty for plain
tiff; Burke, Crane and Alfred for defend
ant.
The next case was Alex Mcdonald VS..
of lot of sugar tools, wagons and other
property, which the plaintiff claimed he
owned, but which went into the posses
sion Of defendant. Parker was to have
the use of McDonald's farm, tools, ETC.,
for his (McDonald's) support. Parker
had disposed of some Of the property, land
would not give up the balance on request.
Parker claimed the property in the trade
and produced deed which covered the
farm, but did not specify each piece of
personal property. There was other ev-
idence which tended to show that all per-
sonal property except few articles were
intended to be conveyed.
The jury returned a verdict. awarding
the plaintiff one cent damages and costs.
Edwards & Burke for plaintiff, Austin and
Prouty for defendant.
The case next tried was Leroy Tute VS..
G. P. Stevens & Co. This was an action
in assumpsit to recover the price of a
quantity of logs which he claimed to have
sold w. H. Wiley of Newport Center,
Wiley gave bank note for them which
| was dishonored; the note was taken to D.
HI. Buck of the firm of G. P. Stevens &
| Co., who gave in place thereof new note
endorsed by c. p. Stevens & Co., -who
were furnishing Wiley with money.
| Mr.. Buck requested him to deliver the
| logs as agreed and the firm would see
him paid. Afterwards Mr.. Buck told him
| (Tute) that he did not consider that the
firm owed him anything, and he must look
to Wiley for his pay.
c. W. Morse, Willey's book-keeper,
| showed by Willey's book balance of
$522.0l due Tute on these logs. The de-
PENDANT claimed that the plaintiff had not
| made out a case sufficient to take thiS
trade out of the statute of frauds. The
court held that there must be such an
agreement between first party and the
| guarantor as to place the latter in the po-
sition OF one of the original parties, and
that the plaintiff had not shown that Ste,
vens & Co. had made such a trade with
plaintiff as to place them in the position
OF original contractors. They were sim
ply guarantorS, and as there was not 9
written agreement they were not liable
Judgment was entered for the defendant
subject to exceptions by the plaintiff
Prouty and Thompson for plaintiff, Dick.
erman, Young and Wilson for defendant
This closed the civil list. Patrick Keat
ing, Solon Brown and Frank Jarvis wer,
brought into court and plead not guilty
to indictments against them, respectively
for rape, assisting to break jail and burg
larry. The first criminal case was tn
Heating case. The jury brought in yer
dict of guilty, and he will get a term a
States Prison.