The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1889-09-25
Washington County Court.

CHSB TETBTTFU WUtK T5sU6
as then on trial was Camp and Wife rs.
Town Of Plainfeld.- This was an action in
which the wife was the meritorious cause
OF the action, in that she had received in
juries by reason of being thrown out of her
carriage, the overturning resulting from an
alleged insui1icienCy of certain bridge on
a highway which the defendant town was
bound by law to keep in good and sufficient
repair. The facts in the case as developed
by the evidence were about as follows: On
the 23d of October, Mrs. Camp, who lives in
the village OF Barre, started TO make a visit
to the old homestead, to her brothers. The
bridge where the injury happened is short
distance southerly from the house. About
225 rods sOutherly from the bridge is a
crossing of the Wells River railroad. The
bridge in question is small-sized one run
ming over a creek, and is covered by the or
dinary fourteen-foot plank. Mrs Camp and
lady companion came about to this cross
ing, and heard an approaching train. They
crossed the track in safety, and the horse
went along down towards the bridge with
out any trouble though, as the plaintiff
said, at trot. The horse was under per-
feet control until she came to the south side
of the bridge at that point, where, for some
cause or other that she did not know of,
the horse seemed to stop all at once. Being
on the trot he swayed over towards the
east end of the bridge. She thought he
would 90 oil the end of the bridge, so she
pulled hard on the line and the horse
turned back on to the bridge. The wagon
went off on the right hand side and she
and the lady with her were thrown out.
The horses leg was broken and she was
thrown upon pile of stones in the
highway. She was unconscious for some
considerable time and taken to her
brothers very badly bruised and hurt For
a month or more the right eye was entirely
blind, but it has gradually grown better
until she has recovered, though not fully,
the sight of the eye. She was otherwise
bruised on her person and limbs, and in
fact the force of the blow was such that for
a long time she was sore and could scarcely
move. The place in the bridge claimed to
be out of repair was on the south side of the
bridge very near the center of the travelled
track. In the panking of the bridge there
| was place three or four inches wide and
| foot or more in length. The plaintiff could
account for the injury to the horse and con-
| sequent mshap to Mrs. Camp in no other
! way than that the horses foot went in there
and that broke his leg. Plaintiff intro
| duced a doctor of horses from st. Albans,
| VT, who testified that the horses leg was
/ broken i'll half a dozen places about the
shin. 1t was the breaking of the horses
| leg that made him come near falling down,
and veering to the eastward. Nobody in
/ the train approaching, when the team went
over the crossing saw the accident but the
fireman, who saw the team tip over and
gave tn" alarm to the engineer, who backed
down and went to the assistance of the two
! ladies'. When the first person arrived the
| horse was about twenty-five feet from the
bridge, and he stood looking at the wagon
and the people there. The horse went
away on three legs as the train backed up.
He went distance further and then
turned round and looked back again. The
horse was a valuable one, worth 5000, and
| in consequence of the accident had to be
| killed. 1t was one that Mrs. Camp had
| driven for a long time. 1t was admitted
| that the hriIUp the town bnunH
to keep in repair. On the part of the de-
fense it was claimed that the bridge was in
good condition; that it a bridge about
twelve feet and few inches in width over
a small stream. After the accident some
of the authorities went to examine the
bridge, and could find no place where
horses foot had made any mark such as
might have been expected if the horse had
caught his foot in any part OF the planking
of the bridge. 1t was denied that the in
jury was caused by any defect in the
bridge. 1t was also claimed that the plain
tiff was rot as badly injured as she repre-
sented, though not much question was made
but that the horse was as valuable as repre-
sented. The defendant introduced some OF
the train hands who saw the team, and the
claim made by the defendant was that the
horse was afraid of the cars, and started on
the run; that in some way the accident Oc-
Cured; that it never could be explained
lust how it did occur. The theory of the
/ Town was uldu lne MORSE Ill SOlnt way, Oh
account of the speed it was running broke
its leg on the road. The case was argued
for the plaintiff by o. B. Boyce and Mr.
Shurtleif; for the defendant by Mr.. Hoyt and
c. w. Wing. The jury returned verdict
for the plaintiff for SIT damages and costs
A. o. Cummins as. Timothy Davis.-Ir
this case the plaintiff as administrator o
the estate of IL. NJ. Cummings, sought tC
recover the amount Of certain notes and q
certain rental set forth in his specifications
amounting to nearly two thousand dollars
1t comes to county court on appeal from 8
decision of commissioners on the estate o
Polly Gould. Most of the parties to the
original transactions were dead and no one
was left to testify to them. 1t was con
ceded by the parties all round that in 1856
David Gould made his will, he being mar
of considerable property, by which he gave
to his wife, Polly Gould, the use of farm
of about one hundred eighty acres, said tC
/ be worth some $4,000. He gave the farm
itself to his son, John Gould, on his pay
! ment of certain sums out OF 1t or towards
it, Soon after, by some arrangement JONI
took the farm and was to keep his mother
John began borrowing money and giving
notes secured on the farm, all OF which
notes were signed by his mother and him
, self. The notes and mortgages came int
; the possession of III. M. Cummings, and IL
J September 1875 bill OF foreclosure wa
! brought. Polly Gould died in 1884, abou
six months after the death of her son John
= Meanwhile in 1881, the plaintiff as admin
istrator of Henry NJ. Cummings locke,
around for something to get as security TO
the indebtedness he held against the Gould
and took an assignment of an interest tina
/, Polly Gould had in the estate of her de
ceased sister, Lucinda Cutler. This assign
= ment was set aside by the court on the find
a ing of w. p. Dillingham; and NJ. f. Smile
special masters, that at the time of maxim!
U it Polly was not Of sufficient mind. Thi
. was the keynote of the defense. 1t wa
shown by several witnesses that Polly wa
not of strong mind at and about the tim
!. the notes were given, and the jury returne
y verdict for $427, disallowlng the note
II sued for S. G. Shurtleif and j. p. Lamso
for plaintiff; Senter q Kemp and III. A
Huse for defendant.
@ Sanford Slocum as. Horatio Templeton.-
This was an action of replevin in favor {
4 the plaintiff, through his guardian, of cel
" " tain farm produce, The defendant elaine
right to the property as collector of taxes
he having taken it on the tax of Mr.. Sic
i" cum. In the present suit Mrs. Slocum no
o being party, the validity of the tax coul
not be tried, and it resolved itself into
+ question of who was the real owner of tn
r. property, Mrs. Slocum or her husband Th
A. balance of evidence in the minds of til