Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1886-09-24
WINDHAM COUNTY COURT


In the horse case of johnson DS DooLttIe
reported last week the jury disagreed and
were discharged.
Il. I. COrSe1 as. p. s. KimbaH r. h.
Pierce anil j. b. Biack.-Iu this case the
evidence of the plaintiff tended to show that
he leased to the defendant Kimball for the
year commencing April l, 1885, his farm in
Putney known a. the Black farm, and was to
receive therefor a. rent one-half the crops
and products of said farm. That in the fall
and winter plaintiff and Kimbsll made a di-
vision of certain of the products of the farm
including the hay in the big barn, so called,
but that the hay in the horse barn nor the
straw bad ever been divided between them.
That the wife of defendant Black had a chat.
tel mortgage upon Kimbal's half of the
crops to secure note Kimball had given her
for stock he had purchased amounting to
about Sl57 That the last of December 1885,,
the defendant Black, with the consent Of
Kimball, sold to defendant Pierce nearly the
whole OF Kimbalrs half of the hay in the big
barn, according to the division made by KIM
ban and plaintiff, aud KmbAll's half OF the
hay and straw in the horse barn, which de-
PENDANT Pierce moved away to his own prem
Uses. That in taking the hay in the big barn
the defendants, who all assisted therein took
away some 500 lbs. more than Kimbalrs half
according to the division. This was accom-
pshed by working under and on to plaintiffs
half in cutting down the hay in the bay.
That defendant removed about ~ tons of hay
and 3 tons of straw, which according to the
rule of good husbandry should have been fed
out on the place. That plaintiffs damage
was for the 900 pounds Of hay at Sl3 per ton,
and 81 per ton for the % tons, which would
be its value to convert into manure for the
use of the farm. The defendants evidence
tended to show that the total amount of hay
taken by Pierce was only tons, and less
than 3 tons of straw. That in cutting down
and removing the hay they did it as well as
they could, and that tho share left for plain
| tiff would exceed in weight that taken by
| them. That they did not remove one half
the straw and left all the corn fodder for
| plaintiff. That the hay was not worth exceed
| ing 81 per ton to feed out on the place to
make manure, and that the straw was not ~
valuable as hay for that purpose. The de-
PENDANTS claimed that they could not be hold
| liable on the count in trover unless the jury
should find that in removing the hay they
| took over one half, and then only for the ex
cess of one-half That in no event could
| Pierce and Black be held responsible for the
| value of the hay for manure to be fed out on
the place That for this the lessee Kimball
could alone be held responsible on his cove
nants to carry on the farm in a good and bus
band. like manner. Verdict for plaintiff,
1861 damages. Exceptions and motion to
set aside verdict by defendants. Waterman
& Martin and Eddy for plaintiff Haskins
| & Stoddard and Tyler for defendants.
| d. 4. Dickinson rs. ID. G. Hone. Action
was trover for harrow. The evidence on
the part Of the plaintiff tended to show that
in September 1885 he was possessed OF har.
row of the value of twenty eight dollars
which in the February previous he purchased
of one j. w. Hosford. That the defendant
came to his place aud took the harrow away
and converted it 10 mis- own use. Defendant
evidence tended to show that he purchased the
harrow in Boston and loaned it to said Hos
ford to use through the season of 1891 that
if he liked il he wanted to purchase, and had
the money to pay for it; he would then sell 1t
to him, but never had. That he found the
plaintiff had the harrow claiming to own it,
and he went to plaintiffs farm and took il
away as he had right to do. The plaintiff
evidence in rebuttal tended to show that de-
PENDANT sold the harrow to Hosford on credit,
and did not loan it TO him to use as claimed
by defendant, and that Hosford had a right
to sell it to plaintiff. Verdict for plaintiff to
recover sos damages. HAskins * Stoddard
for plaintiff Waterman ~ Martin for defend
ant
The following criminal cases had been dis
posed of up to this writing;
lStdte gs. Frank H. Far, apt. Complain
for selling intoxicating liquors. Plea guilty
: of 20 first offences Fined $500 and costs.
State Us. Frank H. FAR, dpt.-This wa'
a second complaint for selling intoxicating
liquors Plea guilty of 20 first offences
Fined 5000 and costs.
State 0s. Fred 4. DdUis. Indictment TO
selling liquor. Plea guilty of 20 first offences
Fined 5000 and costs.
State Us. William Reed Indictment fo
r selling liquor Plea guilty OF 10 first offences
Q Fined 800 and costs.
State Us Sidney u. Jones. Indictment TO
= an assault and battery. Plea guilty, and wa
s fined $50 and costs.
State gS. Willard PKe.-Indictmen for Al
assault and battery. Plea guilty and wa
fined $50 and costs.
a State gs. john Potter. Indictment for a
) assault and battery. Plea guilty, and wa
n fined SIS and costs.
4 state Us. George HeIrick Indictment fc
- larceny. Bonds in 800 called and declare
forfeited.
STATE Us. Geo. W. Darts Indictment fC
larceny. Bonds in $50 called and declare
70 forfeited.
70 Diporces Levi Moore from Mary An
Moore for wilful desertion; Josephine Monrt
80 from Alexander Monroe for intolerable seve
~ ity.
in m this morning, and to day the case OF Il
state against one Wyman OF Grafton, for TO
ip nication. is on trial This completes the jul
cases, and at its conclusion an adJournme
in will probably be taken till next week. wht
only the usual court business will remain TO
K. transacted