The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1890-09-24

Dtllo anu tdint W MI NbDSlbTj Dub lOT
some reason he made up his mind not to
deal in it, and thereupon he wrote to the
company, so informing them, and stating
that the goods were at Barre subject to the
order of the shippers. He received reply
that the manager of the company was then
absent, but that on his return the matter
should receive attention Nothing further
was done on either side until about the
time the draft was to mature. 1t was ar
ranged between the parties that in case Mr..
Webster had not sold the food when the
draft became due that then he was to so no.
tify the shippers, and they would arrange
to extend the time when the draft should
be paid. Not having sold the goods Mr..
Webster did so notify the shippers, but no
notice was taken of the communication,
and at maturity the draft was not met,
Webster refusing to honor it, because he
claimed the goods that came to him were
not like the samples that had been shown
to him when the trade was made between
the parties. In cross examination Mr.. Web
ster admitted that he had not made any eff
forts whatever to dispose OF the feed. The
plaintiff is senior member of the firm of
Paine Il Weber, stock brokers of BOs-
ton-members Of the Boston and New
York stock exchanges. He swore that
he purchased the draft of Richardson
and paid him the full value of it, less ten
per cent for discounting it. He did not
know any of the circumstances under which
the draft was given by the defendant; he
! testified that he was acquainted with Mr.
Richardson, who was a dealer in cattle food:
that Richardson had brought to him at diff
ferent times number of drafts signed by
men in different parts of the country; that
this was the first that had been protested
He claimed to be an innocent holder, and
that he ought to recover on the draft. The
pla1ntlH introduced witness who was with
him in Boston, and this witness and the de-
fendant both swore that Mr. Paine was seen
by them at the Office of the company which
shipped the goods; that he was in the Office
with Mr.. Richardson when the defendant
and his witness called there. This testi-
mony was to connect the plaintiff with
Richardson, who had sold him the draft In
reply to this, plaintiff swore he was not in
Mr.. Richardson's Office at the time and on
the occasion claimed by the defendant: and
| the plaintiff called as witness one Barker.
! who was clerk for Richardson and this
witness swore that he was in Richardson's
! office when Mr. Webster and another gem
! tleman called; that they saw him-Barker-
there, and went away. The court charged
the jury briefly on the law of the case, and
verdict was returned for the defendant to
recover his costs. o. B. Boyce and j. p.
Lamson for plaintiff; f. l.. Laird and S. e.
| Shurtleff for defendant.
LAURA A. GAMBLE Us. The METROPOLITAN
| LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW York.
This was an action to recover the amount of
a certain life insurance policy in favor of
band OF the plaintiff. Since the suit was
commenced Mrs. Gamble has married
again, and her name is now Mrs. Laura A.
Waycott. The evidence in the case, which
was very brief, tended to show that in the
summer of 1888 the husband of the Dlaintiff
committed suicide while living in the state
of Missouri The plaintiffs testimony was
| to the effect that her husbands mind had
succumbed to grief caused by the death of
his little daughter. This testimony was OBJ
Jected to by Mr.. Porter, who raised the
point that the policy specially set up that in
case of suicide or death of the insured by his
own hand the policy should be null and
void, and all that should be then paid was
the value of the policy at the date of death
Further, 1t was provided that, even if the
insured should be insane at the time he so
took his own life, the policy should still
be null and void. The court ruled this
point well taken, and decided the case in
favor of defendant as far as the amount of
insurance was concerned, and ordered a
verdict for the plaintiff for --, which
was the sum paid to the defendant company
as premiums, to date of the last payment
Defendant objected to a verdict being or
dered for plaintiff even for this sum, be-
cause tender had been made of that
amount by the company to Mr.. Boyce,
counsel for Mrs. Gamble. Both parties
took exception, and the case will be tried
in the supreme court on the question raised
by the clause in the policy referred to
above. S. g. Shurtleff and w, A. Boyce for
plaintiff; G. w. Porter for defendant
CHARLES A. REED as. S. f. AND f. l..
NEwCoMB.-Action of assumpsit to recover
a balance due on the sale of some cattle. 1t
was conceded that the plaintiff sold the
cattle, which were used in a certain meat
market on Main street, Montpelier, of which
Frank l.. Newcomb, one of the defendants
had charge. The plaintiffs position in the
case was that the business was in fact the
business of Sarah +. Newcomb, and that
she was the real buyer of the cattle; that
her husband acted as her agent in the man
agement of this business, and in the pur-
chase of the cattle; that he also promised
payment on the cattle. The defendant
Frank L. Newcomb made no defense and no
appearance in court by himself or attorney.
The defendant Sarah F. Newcomb insisted
that the suit could not be maintained against
her. even if her husband was merely her
agent and the business in fact hers, because
she was not carrying on the business in her
own name. The court held however, that
II she was the actual owner of the business,
doing it through her husband, she was doing
it in her own name within the meaning of
the statute Mrs. Newcomb denied that her
husband was her agent, and denied any con-
nection whatever with the business Plant
i'll s evidence tended to show that when the
business of Bailey * Newcomb was bought
out that Mrs. Newcomb became the pur-
chaser of it, and plaintiff introduced a GER
that fact But this paper was signed by her,
as she testified without knowledge of what
she was signing, and at her husbands re-
quest. She denied purchasing the business,
but claimed she only advanced money TO
her husband as a loan to enable him TO buy
it, This comprised the respective claims of
the parties The case went to the jury on
Saturday forenoon and they returned ver-
dict against both the defendants for plain
tiff's claim and interest, amounting to Sl60
and costs. 7. II. Gordon and George w.
Wing for plaintiff; T. j. Deavitt and j.
p. Lamson for defendant Mrs. Newcomb
CHARLES PRESTON as. DANIEL w. BAN
CRoFT-Replevin for a cow. The facts in
this case are briefly these: In the year 1885
the plaintiif bought the COW OF "A man by the
name of Ptldn, paying 50 down and at "A
later time paying the balance of so. The
plaintiff, having proved his title TO the cow
and stated that he had taken it from the
possession of Bancroft January Is, 1885,
rested his side of the case The defendant S
evidence went to show that few months
after the COW was bought Mr.. Preston left
his wife and family. AT the time he so left,
he and his family lived with Mr. and Mrs.