Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1888-02-13
Orleans County Court.

IutSudy, cut. I'LL. overs, 81 uQSe,
Hon. j. G.. Oliver and Hon. e. p
Owen, assistants, J. H. Mimms. re-
porter. The first case tried was
Bartlett VS.. Wilson. This was an
action brought by the town of Brown
ington to recover taxes of James Will
son. This case was tried at a former
term and sent to supreme court on
exceptions. At the May term of 1886
supreme court the decision of the
county court was reversed and a new
trial granted. The decision of the SUI
preme court relieved Wilson of all
but about the sum of seventy dollars,
which was the bone of contention in
this case. Only one issue was submit
ted to the jury, whether James Wilson
had known personal property in the
state at the time the suit was brought.
The evidence on the part of the town
was mainly statements of Wilson that
he hsd no personal property. Four
or five witnesses testified to a search
for said property. The defendant Of
fered to show that Wilson was the
owner of about $1,000 worth of prop
erty which at that time was covered
by lease. The offer was refused
nv hn hn
to the jury, after charge by court
without argument by counsel. The
jury rendered verdict in favor of the
town. Edwards, Dickerman and
Young for town; Thompson, Burke
and Cahoon for Wilson. The town is
paying dearly for all they will be
likely to get out of Uncle Jim.
The next case was the somewhat no
torious 'sBulP' case of Fleming VS..
Mitchell. This case was partially
tried in the Feb. term, 1887, but
through misfortune to Fleming was
broken up. This suit was brought
to recover something for the use or
abuse, or worth of a pair of cattle !;
it being somewhat uncertain even
what the claims of the two parties
were. Fleming, the plaintiff, and
first witness, testified in part as fol-
lows: In Dec, 1884, owned a pair
of bulls, worth $50, and that some
time in that month he met the de-
PENDANT, Mitchell, in Newport and
had talk about letting him have the
cattle to use for their keeping; that
Mitchell was to return them in as
good condition in the spring as when
he took them, and in event of failing
so to dow to pay him 800 for them
Later his claim changed somewhat, in
that he was to have from Mitchell
the difference in value from the time
Mitchell took the cattle and the time
of their return that be chose Mr..
Brewster of Newport as witness to
the trade and appraiser of the cattle !;
that he and Mitchell went to Brews-
ter's stable, where the cattle were,
and there in the presence of Mitchell
and man named Laha, stated to
Brewster that Mitchell was to take
the cattle and use for their keeping
and return in the spring in as good
condition as when taken, and if they
were not Mitchell was to pay $50
that the cattle were good workers
when Mitchell took them, and when
returned were worthless to him. Tes-
titled when and where he had worked
them before that time and that they
were good to work; that neither of
them ever lay down when at work
that they were precious to him be-
cause his wife thought good deal of
them because left by her father. Dur
ing cross-examination he became some
what puzzled, probably more through
ignorance than a desire to testify
falsely. A trouble in talking seemed
to bother court, lawyers and jurors.
The next witness was HI. S. Brew
ter, who was called from his office by
Fleming to witness the trade between
Fleming and Mitchell in regard to
the cattle. Fleming stated over the
trade, in presence of Mitchell as de-
tailed in first part of Fleming's tes-
timony, except the price was to be
$50; that he looked cattle over by
lantern light and found them in good
working condition; that there were
no scars on cattle SO far as he could
determine had seen them work more
or less. and so far as he knew were
good workers; was called by Elem
ing to see cattle LIST June, 1885, and
found them in very poor condition,
sore on left side of near OK and scab
on nose, appeared all worn out, not
worth anything to Fleming, and so
stated to him and Mitchell. Quite a
searching cross examination failed
to make any changes in his evidence.
Plaintiff then rested, and defendant
introduced the following evidence:
William Mitchell, the defendant,
claimed that Fleming asked for
chance to get the cattle kept for their
use. that he recommended them as
very good cattle to work, and that he
was to take the cattle and use for
their keeping, and if not in as good
condition as when taken he was to
do what was right. That there was
no talk at any time about his paying
80 or 80 dollars if oxen were not as
good as when taken. Cattle looked
bad when he took them, but he relied
on representations of Fleming, Did
not hear any such statement as Elem
ing and Brewster detailed as made in