Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1890-09-19
wINDHAM COUNTY COURT.

~ W NhoM Ihat on Jhe Hith day OF September,
1871 he sold the defendant pair Of steers for the
agreed price Of sos, Of which amount he had re-
celved the sum Of $40, In part payment The pvi.
denCe Of the defendant tended 10 show that tho
s ,at were bought by his brother, Charles b.,
VINO was engaged In the business of butcherinR al
SaXtons River, and that he, the defendant aid not
ouy or agree TO pay Tor them, Plaintiffs evidence
further tended to show that the defendant and his
brother Chas b. were co.partners In business
and that Chas h. had deceased This the defend,
ant ant denied The jury found specially that the
steers were sold TO the defendant solely and that
| me defendant and Chas b. were not partners in
the transaction at that time and further rendered
general verdict for the plaintiff to recover of the
defendant Sl1496 damages
walker and Read for the plaintiff
PENDANT WV Wv
Ddrid Leahey U.s. William Martin. This was an
action Of SANDER for calling the plaintiff thief
The defendant pleaded not guilty and justification
OF the truth Of the charge The evidence of the
plaintiff tended to show that on the 28th of July,
1889, the defendant called at his house and during
a.wordy alteration IN the presence Of his family
and 10 the hearing Of others the defendant charg.
ed him with being a thief, and that subsequently
on the same or the following day In the presence
Of divers persons and on the public street called
MIN a thief. The evidence Of the defendant tend.
| ed to show that while he applied good many
harsh aud profane epithets to the plaintiff, he
never did charge him with being thief as plain.
tins evidence tended to show. That the PLAINTIFFS
character for truth and veraClty was not good;
ana that plaintiff while administrator Of his
| brothers estate embezzled large sum Of money
| therefrom and retained II for over six years
| lying in jail during all that period rather than
/ comply with the order and Judgment Of the
| court to pay It over to the new administrator that
had been appointed upon his enforced resgna-
| ton: The defendants counsel argued that such
| conduct on plaintiffs part was to all intents and
| purposes larceny OF the fund That IL not
technically larceny, yet il was Of "A character
| that should 20 long ways in mitigation uf dam
| ages in the court II the jury should find the
| PLAINTIFFS evidence to be true
The counsel for the plaintiff claimed aud ar
| gued to the contrary.
| Verdict for the defendant
| Eddy and Read for the plaintiff
| Waterman, Martin & HIT Tor the defendu t.
Watson s. French rs james u. F0iiru This
was an action Of repleyln for a sorrtl mare four
| years old. The evidence Of the plautif tended
TO show that in June, 1889, he was the owner Of
| the mare In dispute, which was worth $3.50, That
| April % he loaned her to the defendant to work
| with his horse for few days ON the farm; that
he ascertained that he was not properly caring
| Tor the mare and he went to defendant and
| took her away; that defendant came after her
and he again let her 20 back into his possession;
| that afterwards he learned that defendant was
claiming he had bought the mare, and therefore
| he went very early one morning and took her
home The mare was murtgaged to one Collins
| ct Londonderry, and he left home with the mare
| to see about said mortgage, going from Towns
bend wa Wardsboro and Stratton That while
| stopping at the latter place over night an officer
| arrested him ON the complaint Of Mr. Follett and
| returned him and the mare to Townshend; the
mare was delivered to defendant and he was ar.
| ragned ON the complant and ordered to find
| bonds, and In default thereof was committed To
| jail That June 10 he replevined the mare from
the defendant and it was delivered into his pos
session.
The evidence Of the defendant tended to show
That April - he had a talk with plaintiff about
buying the mare; that the price was fixed at $3.50,
and it was further agreed that he might take her
| home to work and If she worked all right with his
horse il was to be trade. The mare did work
all right, and In two or three days thereafter he
saw the plaintiff, when IL was agreed that he
should have the mare and was to pay for her by
paying at his own convenience SB2 at the Jamaica
savings bank, for which amount said mare was
mortgaged to Collins who had signed the note with
plaintiff; that they were to look over their ac-
counts the next Saturday evening aud whatever
was found to be due defendant was TO be applied
in further part payment and the balance to be
paid in cash. That as agreed the defendant called
On the plaintiff TO settle their accounts and to pay
whatever balance might be due in cash. That
plaintln pretended lie was busy and could not at
tend to the settlement at that time whereupon
defendant then offered to advance the plaintiff
so, and pay any balance When they did settle
counts. Plaintiff refused to take the money, pre-
tending that he ditn I know that he had right
To sell the mare and desired first to consult his
counsel. Mr. Waterman; that Mr.. Waterman was
consulted and advised by letter that If the note at
the bank was taken care Of, nothing stood in the
way Of plaintiff making the sale. That the fol
lowing saturday night they looked over their
accounts and II was found that the plaintiff
owing defendant little over SIS, and he was
ready to pay the balance, but plaintiff would not
take it, claiming that he was owing 81 less The
next night plaintiff took the mare from his stable
for which he had been arrested as before stated
That plaintiff then repleyined the mare from him
The plaintiff further gave evidence tending to
show that he only agreed to sell the mare for
cash in hand, and never agreed that the defend
ant might assume and pay the bank note That
defendant was owing him balance on account
instead of he owing defendant A good many
witnesses testified in behalf Of the defendant that
plaintiff told them he had sold defendant the
mare, and the trade was as defendant claimed
and testified, Also that plaintiffs reputation for
truth was bad.
Waterman. Martin x Hit and Eddy for the
plaintiff
Haskins 4 Stoddard and Read for the defend
ant
Scott Dahkiee .. Reuben BloOd This was an
action brought to recover for cottage organ and
sewing machine sold defendant. The plaintiff
evidence tended to show that pursuant 10 notice
he received from defendant he took to his house in
Westminster on the Goth Of February, 1889, a cot
, tage organ aud sewing machine, and sold them to
him at the agreed price Of one hundred and thirty
dollars, and was TO be paid for by delivery to him
in Bnttle6oro three days thereafter, three steers at
the agreed price Of SIS, and $50 in money. That
defendant did not deliver the cattle and thereupOn
on the eth Of March lie r'turned to Westminster to
hhd out about It, when defendant excused himself
on the ground that he didn't own the cattle, and
therefore could not sell them. That he then made
j new sale to him for S25 to be paid in few days
= thereafter, but had never paid for the same The
r evidence Of the defendant tended to show that he
D never purchased the property Of plaintiff either on
February 26th or March eth, or at any other time
t That lie never sent word to plaintiff To bring any
p such property TO his place That he never agreed
= to let him have any cattle IN exchange That when
g plaintiff first came there he told HIM he did moi
want either the organ or sewing machine, and that
Il | II he intending TO buy he would not pay 80
much money for that kind Of property. That plain
tff proposed to leave them at his house try, and
did leave them. That when he came there on March
= 9Th. II TO how they liked them. aud both he
y and his wife told him that they cost too much and
they did not want them. That plaintiff asked per
mission 10 let them remain there, and in a few
K weeks he would have u cheaper organ and would
e then exchange II they liked. May end he wrOt,
y them he had then such an organ and thought 4
p would suit them May nth defendant and VIII,
l. called nj his place Of business and requested him Il
e take his property away. May lith plaintiff wrote
q them, claiming sale May 2Jth defendant replied
, denying that he had ever bought OF him, and re
e uuested him to come aud get his property anC
= again wrote him similar letter in October, and be
fore suit was brought
d The case went to the jury this forenoon.
e Waterman, Martin & Hit for the plaintiff.
Haskins Il StOddard for the defendant
o Lucy Capen rs CAas H. DdtnpOrf Th
K an action on promissory note and was heart
J. by the court Thursday evening. The plaintiff in
troduccd defendants note dated September t. 1886
u for SlIO55 payable on demand with interest which
,r note defendant admitted the execution thereof
Defendant claimed and testified that said note wa
given to take the place OF note for 500, datet
August 4, and payable to plaintiff at the People
I. National bank That said last mentioned note wa
given to pay his subscription Of that amount
T. which, with the subscription Of others was used t
# buy piece Of land Of plaintiff situated on the nort
p side Of Prospect street for public park. That h
!. agreed with plaintiffs agents not 10 deliver thu
NJ deed to the village Of BrattebOrO until Il certail
~ other amount Of money had been raised by the sub
r. scrhers beautify and adoTn said park That con
traTy 10 such agreement said deed WIS delivered
II further appeared that the plaintiff her agent
were parties 10 sdlu EuusttptOhs anu iuht nd'
notes were both made and delivered in payment o
rs his subscription long before he requested plaintiff
"a not to deliver the deed: That plaintiff did retail
T. the deed until all the subscriptions paid, ethe
in cash or by notes. That on the representation u
ne the subscribers who most active, that all tn
n conditions had been complied with, he Delivers
1t over the deed to the village That defendant ha
IF paid the interest the note for two years and al
why's said that the plaintiff should be paid and tina
ir this suit was brought at his own request
P The court took the case under advlsement.
IIaskins Il SlOddard for plaintiff.
.. Waterman Martin Il Hit, for defendant.
1. The Work Of the Grand Jury.
D. At the commencement of the session Hon
In u. Harris was appointed foreman of the gran
Jury, and It further organized by choosing Wn
.r o. Miller Cf Dummerston for clerk They tinishe
X their inquiries and were discharged Friday after