The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1886-03-17
Washington County Court.

Vail & Work rs. John r.. Brott and John
r. Brott rs. Vail & Work.--These two cases
were tried together. Vail 4 Work were, in
1888, the manufacturers of the DeLaval
cream separator, and had their headquarters
in Middletown N. Y. Some time in Feb
ruary of that year one Real, who was then
the manager of the Cream Separator Com
many went to Midway, Mass, to see about
a separator then just sold to Mr.. Mills,
and while there saw Brott. who was at work
for Mills. AS to the conversation there
had between them there was considerable
conflict in the testimony, but the result of
that interview was that Brott left his job as
manager of Mills farm, at salary OF 500,
and went to New York to engage in the sale
of the separator as an agent for Real. Brott
spent a week or so investigating the con-
struction and principle of the machine, and
then, with some money given him by Real,
started out to sell them to the farmers of
New England. In a short time the man
agement of this business changed, ana Vail
* Work became the managers OF the DuSl-
ness Their arrangement included Brott,
and he was so notified and kept at work for
them as before The arrangement by winch
he was at work was one of the principle
points of difference between the parties In
this suit. Brott claimed, and his evidence
tended to show, that Real hired him Tor SlOO
per month and his expenses, ana further
inducement was that soon he should have
the general agency of the Canadas: Inc
other party claimed, and their evidence
tended to show that the arrangement was
that Brott should work the first month for
his expenses, and then, if he gave satisfac-
ton, that he was to have $40 per month ana
his expenses. Brott continued to work for
the new firm until about the LIST OF May,
when, according to the Interpretation
given them by the contract, his time
was ended, and then they discharged him.
The last business Brott done for the firm
was to collect the price of machine sold to
one Hall, and this was after his term OF
service had expired, as the firm understood:
They came on to look after this matter, and
found Brott here atMontpelier and had him
arrested for holding money in fiducary ca
pacity, and he responded with a suit for his
services and had one of the partners who was
here attending to that business, arrested.
Each side procured bail and the cases were
entered and both tried together. Vail &
Work claimed that they advanced some
$3.50 to him to pay his expenses, and that
they could get no detailed statement of his
expenses from him. that he would render
no account and was no benefit to them in
the sale of the machine. Brott claimed that
they had paid him only $240; that this had
been spent, and more with 1t, for legitimate
expenses, and that they were indebted to
him for expenses and for his labor to a sum
greater than the amount collected of Hall
for the machine. There was some issue be-
tween the parties about how much this col
lection from Hall was, or rather about the
amount of that collection that Brott ought
to account to the firm for He claimed that
the $500 included the freight which the
firm was to pay, and which he paid, amount
ing to some 500. The plaintiffs claimed that
if he sold that machine for less than $500 he
did it in defiance of their orders and instruc-
tons, and that he should account for the full
price of the machine. This case commenced
Wednesday morning, and a verdict was re-
ceived late in the afternoon OF Friday. Yer
dict in the first case for the plaintiffs, Vail
q Work, to recover the sum of S2S9.9O and
their costs, and, in the second case, for the
plaintiff, Brott, to recover the sum of
S67 40 and his costs. A motion was made in
the first case for certified execution. This
was understood to be compromise verdict
in the second case, as several of the jury
men thought that the defendant, Brott, was
not entitled to receive anything. The de-
PENDANT, Brott excepted to the ruling of the
court upon the admission of some deposit
tons, and the case will go to the supreme
court. S. G. Shurtletf and j. p. Lamson for
Vail & Work; Heath & Willard and Frank
Plumley for Brott.
William l.. Godfrey Us. the United States
Hulless Oats COmpany.-ln this action the
plaintiff sought to recover a sum of money
which he claimed he had advanced to the
company as loan. His evidence tended to
show that at the time the company was
formed he advanced them money and was
to be paid for certain services which he
rendered to the company; that they gave
him certain certificates of their stock and
told him it would be just the same as a note
from them The defendants claimed, and
their evidence tended to show, that the
plaintiff was partner with them and that
the money he put into the firm was his part
of the capital, and that the services he per-
formed were done and performed as part
ner. In the course of the trial the articles
OF association were introduced, and they
were certainly rare specimen. Among
other things in these articles, it is provided
that the moneys realized from this enter
prise shall not be deposited in any bank,
but shall be deposited in the United States
treasury for safe keeping. So far as has APP
peared, it would have been just as well for
the gullible individuals who put their money
into this visionary scheme had they deposi-
ted ii in furnace, and even better, for they
not only lost what they put in in the first
place, but have been subjected to many long
and expensive suits at law, and have been
obliged to pay many bills made by their
manager and large costs Verdict for the
defendants. G. w. Porter for the plain
tiff; Boyces, Boyden and Dillingham; for
defendants.
Peter Badord Us. A. p. Slayton.-This was
an action appealed by the plaintiff from
the decision of the justice court before
which it was originally brought. The plain
tiff claimed to recover for blackboard
wagon which he claimed he sold to the de-
PENDANT, to be paid for in wood delivered at
Montpelier, for the agreed price of $13. The
defendant claimed that he agreed to pay
only $40 for the wagon and that he was to
pay it in sab-wood delivered at his mill in
Gilmore; that he had always been ready to
deliver the wood as agreed upon; that the
plaintiff or rather the plaintiffs principal.
had come to his mill and procured one load
of the wood, and that he was ready at any
time to deliver the balance as agreed upon.
Verdict for plaintiff of Slab. Deavitt for
PLAINTIFF Senter & Kemp for defendant