The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1889-09-18
NUMBER 80.

this brought the tub outside of the defend
ants line. Thereupon defendant moved
it, and it was the digging and removal of
the tub that was made the gist of plaintiffs
action. The plaintiff claimed title to the
spring Of water from the same person who
had sold the land to Crockett, viz, French.
1t was claimed by plaintiff that Hooker
senior, during his lifetime had exercised an
ownership in the spring by charging Crock
EFT 50 for the use Of 1t. But in reply TO this
Crockett testified that he did some work for
Hooker, and the latter stopped So out of his
BILL saying it was for water; that thereupon
Mr.. Crockett said he had bought the use of
that spring for $50 and should not call it
pay for the use of the spring, though he
(Hooker) might keep the 50. 1t also ap-
peared that Hooker, senior, once or twice
cut the pipe leading to defendants house,
and shut off the water, but that defendant
had repaired the cutting and let the water
run to the house again. One witness testi-
fed that this cutting was about the year
1882 Defendant claimed to have had IF
teen years uninterrupted possession of the
water, and had therefore gained what is
known as a prescriptive title to it. On this
point the jury found in favor of the defend
ant, and returned verdict for him to re-
cover his costs. The court submitted sew
eral special findings to the jury to have the
question finally determined as to the right
of the use of the water, but, after trying all
night and part of the next day. the jury
were unable to arrive at a solution, and
were discharged upon taking the general
verdict from them. Boyces and Lamson
for plaintiff; Shurtleff for defendant.
Cyrus w. Hall rs. Austin Huntingdon
This was an action to recover damages be-
cause of the speaking of certain slanderous
words, namely: " You steal everything you
can get your hands on to, and | know it to
be So" The defence was the general issue.
The plaintiff resides at Barre, and has lived
tl,x-a n1.,, H. al. r
January last, he resided in the house of evi
Bolster, on Main street, and the defendant
lived in the same house. On the date
named, Huntington was helping one Cutler
to unload some stone. The plaintiff went
to Huntington to demonstrate with him for
telling certain stories to Mr.. Bolster. After
the interchange of a few words, as the tes-
timony runs the defendant said to him,
"Oh, | know all about you, Mr. Hall, and
you can't scare me at all" and then he
added the words complained of. The plain
tiff called few witnesses to corroborate
his statement as to what defendant said.
On the part of the defendant it was urged
that the words alleged by the plaintiff were
not the words made use of by Hall. The
latter testified that he and Huntington had
some words, and that among other things
he said to the defendant: 81 have heard
about you before;" that the plaintiff asked
him what he had heard, to which he re-
piled, " | have heard you would steal every
thing you could get hold Of" He denied
saying that he knel0 plaintiff would steal;
that what he said was privileged commu-
ncation inasmuch as the plaintiff had asked
him what he had heard. In addition to
this the defendant introduced evidence
tending to show that the plaintiff was in
fact man who would steal and that he
had such a reputation; so he claimed, even
If he did speak the words, they could not
injure the character of the plaintiff, mas
much as it was already bad in that respect
After an effort, the jury came to an agree
ment and returned a sealed verdict on Sat
urday morning in favor of the plaintiff for
one cent damages and his costs. Fay and
Senter for plaintiff; r. NJ. Harvey and
Shurtlef for defendant.
j. X. George rs. j. w Phelps.-This was
an action to recover back money paid by an
insovent to the defendant short time be-
fore the payer was petitioned into insolv
ency. 1t was brought under the statute
which provides that when money is paid by
a man about to go into bankruptcy and who
does go into bankruptcy within four months
from the time of such payment, the assignee
may recover it back so that it may be evenly
distributed among the creditors if it be
found that the creditor receiving the pay
ment knew, or had good reason to believe,
his debtor was about to fail. The testimony
tended to show that the defendant loaned to
the insOlvent one w. G. Jones, the sum of
! S275, in July 1855, and that it was paid back
about November 10th of that year. On the
18th of December the petition in bank
ruptcy was filed, and on the 9th of Decem-
Der Jones was declared an insolvent The
nsolvent had been in the bakery business
in Barre. Defendant did not deny receiv-
ing the money, but did deny that at the
time he received it he knew or had any rea-
| sonable grounds of believing, that Jones
was about to fail. The plaintiff, who was
the assignee, claimed that the circum-
stances were such that the defendant must
have known the condition of Jones, and
asked to have the amount he had received
paid back. The jury returned verdict for
the defendant. Fay and George w. Wing
for plaintiff; Shurteff for defendant.
The case now on trial is ID. A. Camp and
wife u.s. Town of Plainfeld, an action for
damages growing out of an injury arising
from the alleged insufficiency of a certain
bridge in said town near the residence of
one Wesley Gray.