The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1889-03-27
CONTINUED FpoM FIRST pAap

~
course Of conduct that will probably result
in the trial of Mr.. Belville on a criminal
charge unless he runs away The nature of
the charge is too gross to even hint at. The
| bill was granted upon the ground Of intoler-
able severity. Alimony to the petitioner as
per statement on file.
This was the last divorce case and the
| following cases from the Jury assignment
were tried in the order given Charles A.
Reed u.s. Sarah f. & f. /. Newcomb This
was assumpst for the recovery Of S1244S
balance alleged to be due from Frank
j.. Newcomb to the plaintiff growing out
OF certain transactions in live stock between
the parties. \ contract was introduced
showing that Frank l.. was to carry on the
business of butchering for and on behalf of
his wife, and IL was by virtue of this con-
tract that plaintiff claimed the transaction
was with the male defendant as agent.
lie therefore sought to recover of Mrs.
Newcomh. On her part il was claimed
that she had only loaned the money to
her husband, and that he was in fact in the
business for himself. Counsel for plaintiff
urged that this defence could not be availed
Of, inasmuCh as the terms of the written
contract showed different state Of affairs
and must govern. The court so ruled and
ordered judgment for the plaintiff for the
amount claimed. Exceptions allowed and
cause passed to the supreme court. G.. w.
Wing and Gordon for plaintiff. j. p. Lam
son and I. j. Deavtt for Mrs. Newcomb.
for a two-horse Middleton Horse Power. It
| appeared from the evidence in this case that
! the power was attached in a suit of Smith
| rs. Linton, and retaken from the plaintiff
| claiming to be the owner of the machine
! The plaintiff offered certain paper in evil
! dence, purporting to have been executed by
| j. V. Sprague, master in chancery, and TO
| be bill OF sale of the property The in
PRODUCTION of this document was objected
to by the defendant, upon the ground that
] hn M M hat rfnrr 1aI IN,
town clerks Office could not be operative
against the attaching creditor of the man
| giving the paper The property was at
| tached on the 18th of April. Liberty T.
Kinney testified in regard to Moses letting
! Linton take the machine to the mill at
! Paintield, and as to receiving directions
| from Moses to go and take the machine
! away from the custody of Linton because
! he had not paid anything on it, He accord
! ingly sent his men into the Fred Turner
woods and re-took the machine, setting it
up in his mill-yard where he had lot of
wood to saw. While it was so occupied Mr..
Smith, to whom Linton was indebted, be-
came DESTROYS of collecting his debt He
knew that Linton had some time previously
| purchased the power, and going to the town
clerks Office failed to see any record there
! accordingly he set out to take the machine.
1t was claimed by the plaintiff that personal
notice was given to Smith of the existence
of the bill of sale, and that consequently it
and keep the title in Moses. The court rem
dered judgment for the defendant for one
dollar damages and return of the property
Heath & Fay for plaintiff j. p. Lamson
for defendant.
n. b. Rogers, Assignee of A. H. Holt, ~
Charles II. Heath.-ActiOn of general as
sumpsit to recover about 500 of cash in tn
| hands of the defendant. The finding of
facts by the court in this case was about as
follows: AT the September term of the
county court, 1881 Mr.. Heath, az counsel
for Holt, entered justice appeal case, en-
titled Holt rs. Barton; at the March term,
1889, the case was continued and --
- appointed referee at the next term
NJ. e. SMILES name was inserted in the
blank. About this time Mr.. Holt went into
insolvency and the plaintiff in this suit
Rogers-was appointed assignee. He en-
ployed as his counsel Mr.. Lamson, and
Lamson in his usual energetic manner went
to looking after the business. He saw his
case on the docket, and, noticing that the
referee had not been named, had Mr.. Smi-
lie appointed Rogers never said anything
to Mr. Heath to the effect that he should no
longer require his services. A day was ap-
pointed for the hearing by Mr.. Smile, and
on that day Mr.. Rogers happened into
Heath's office, and the matter of the Holt
Barton case came up Thereupon Mr..
Rogers informed Heath that the case was
to be heard that day Mr.. Heath bestirred
himself and went to see about it, When he
arrived at the county clerks Office he dis
covered the case was in course of hearing
He said he proposed to take part in the
trial of one of his own cases, and accord
ingly sat down and helped in the trial.
The assignee did not say word to him not
to do so, or that his services were not re-
quired. The case occupied two days, and a
report was soon filed in the county court
upon which judgment was entered for the
plaintiff. Mr.. I. j. Deavitt was counsel
for Barton, and Heath went to Deavitt to
collect the amount of judgment, and it was
paid to him. This action was to recover
that money. 1t was claimed on the part of
the plaintiff that Mr.. Heaths employment
terminated when Holt went into insolvency
as effectually as if Holt had died; that it
was his duty to have presented his ac cunt
to date as debt against Hollis estate, and
3 have it allowed just as other debts were al
lowed; that inaSmuch as there had been no
employment of him by the assignee he
could not offset such account against the
present claim. Mr.. Heath insisted that
the circumstances created an attorneys
: lien. The court held that Mr.. Heath could
not recover for services up to the time Of
Mr.. Hollis insolvency, but inasmuch as the
assignee had not said anything to Mr.. Heath,
but had seen him apparently working in
the case the court were of opinion that an
implied promise existed to pay Heath for
his services, and ruled that to that extent
the defendant might Offset his claim against
that of the plaintiff j. p. Lamson for
plaintiff Heath * Fay for defendant.
. Elijah Fuller, rs. Edwin Keyes.-This
was petition brought under what is COM
monty called the fraud, accident and mis-
take act, for leave to enter an appeal. 1t
appeared by the evidence that the petitioner
was the defendant in certain Justice case
in which Reyes was plaintiff The result
OF that case was that judgment was rendered
for the plaintiff, Fuller who was an igno-
rant fellow, rendered quarter to his adver-
/, sary's counsel, for an appeal. The 'coun-
sci told him it should be given to the JUS
tice. The twenty cents was handed to
Mr., Justice, and that was all Fuller did.
He never offered or entered bail. Conse-
quently the justice declined TO enter any
appeal, and rendered judgment for plaintiff
The court were satisfied on hearing the
, facts that it was the intention of the petit
, toner to have taken an appeal and there
fore granted the prayer of the petition, and
allowed the appeal to be entered on the
new docket j. A. and John G.. Wing for
+ petitioner Senter < Kemp for respondent.
/. George II. Hathaway as. j. T, Sabn.-
, This was an action of assumpsit in general
and special counts, and came to this court
by appeal from the Judgment of a Justice
The action was brought to recover for a
breach of contract. 1t was claimed by the
plaintiff that the defendant had made a
. contract 10 nav SIN for "A performance by