The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1891-09-16

LCoNIlNuED FROM FIRST PACE
buckle, both testified to the fact of her maxi
ing the endorsement at the date the pack
age was received. The endorsement az the
evidence OF payment by some one was adj
mitted, 1t being in the nature of an admis-
sion against the plaintiffs interest. Plain
titfs counsel urged it must have been maid
either by Templeton or Mallory, and
claimed the circumstances surrounding It
made 1t clear it was by Templeton. In
1873, Mallory went into insolvency and
his estate paid only about $40 on the
note. When Mr.. Templeton was called on
for payment of the note after Mallorv's in
solvency, he refused TO pay, saying that the
note had outlawed as to him, and that
therefore he was not holden. 1t appeared
by the plaintiH's witness that Templeton
had been called upon also before the time
that Mr.. Mallory went into insolvency. and
that one of such calls was Just before Mrs,
Arbuckle received the fifty dollars in oues-
ton. The defendant denied having sent
any money by Mr.. Willard at any time
He swore he had never made payment on
the note, and did not know but what il was
paid up long ago; that he had not had a
thing to do with the note since he signed it
as an accommodation for Mallory. lie adj
mitted that it was signed by him to make it
good, if the addition of his name would do
so. The claim of the defendant was that
the endorsement of fifty dollars had been
put on to TIE note without authority, and
was not any indication of payment at all.
L ue uelenudnJ called several witnesses
who, in the time since 1884, had more than
once seen the note in suit and they testi-
ned that when they so saw it there was no
such endorsement upon it. Some of them
never saw the endorsement until the date
OF the third hearing in the Mallory bank
ruptcy case, when for the first time, as
they claimed, the endorsement aDpeared as
it now does. One of the witnesses who so
testified was Mr. Mallory, the co.siqner of
the note The cross-examination of some
of these witnesses weakened somewhat the
force of their examination in chief on this
point. The case was stubbornly tried and
ably argued on both sides. The iurv found
for the plaintiff for the full amount of her
claim, When the case Of the plaintiff
closed, defendants counsel asked the
court to direct a verdict for the defendant
on the ground that there was not sufficient
evidence on the plaintiffs part to warrant
recovery. The court refused to grant this
request, and an exception was taken, upon
which the case will go up. j. P Lamsou
and Wing 81 Fay for plaintiff; S. C. Shurt-
left and John G. Wing for defendant
The next case on the docket that was to
have been tried was r. G. Bowers Granite
Company rs. P. Rheinhalter & Co, but by
an arrangement between counsel the fol-
lowing case to that was substituted.
This case was Fred A. Sayton as. Alonzo
Roadway, and it came into county court on
appeal from justice trial. The action is in
trover for the alleged conversion of a horse.
IL appeared from me evidence that about
December 16, 1888, the defendant bought a
| chestnut horse of one +. l.. Densmore, and
gave a conditional sale-lien for the amount
of S22 30, for which he gave a note This
note was sold by Densmore to Fred A. Stay
ton, the plaintiff, and he now seeks TO re-
cover the amount due upon the note by the
value of the horse in question. Redway
held the horse in his possession until some
time in the winter of 1889, when he sold him
TO one Emerson. Soon after the horse came
thus into the possession of Emerson he was
notified of there being lien upon it, and he
at once went and traded back to Redway.
According to the claims and testimony on
behalf of the plaintiff, the defendant kept
| the horse until about the middle of June,
| 1882 and then sold him to joseph and John
| Japan for the sum of thirty dollars, the lien
| still being upon the horse. 1t is to recover
! for this conversion of the horse that the
present suit is brought The defendant
| claimed that he was Ignorant of any lien on
| the horse; that he could not read or write,
and that when he bought the horse he gave
| for it a note, payable in lumber, to the
amount of SD 80. He agreed that he had
sold the horse to Emerson, as claimed by
| plaintiff, but that as soon as he learned
! there was lien on it, he went and got it
| back from Emerson, and only had it a short
time thereafter when it took sick and died
| The horse that was purchased of him by the
Lapans, he claims, was another horse, SINH
| lar in appearance to the one in suit. Some
llillr uclDlc IL hlt'l ne lOOh IL 10 lilb DldlI-
tiff, and offered it back in discharge of the
note and lien referred to, but the plaintiff
would not accept it back, demanding pay
ment of the note in money. The case was
argued in the afternoon yesterday, and went
to the jury at a quarter to five. After half
an hours absence they returned with a
verdict for the plaintiff for S13 ST damages
and costs, finding that the horse upon
which plaintiff had lien was the one sold
to the Japan boys. A. G.. Fay and j. G..
INC a. g. II s., Lot,
tiff. 1t is expected that The r. G. Bowers
Granite Company rs. Rheinhalter & Com
pany will be the next case for trial.
On the docket of new entries there are
one hundred and thirty eight cases. outside
of the state cases referred to above. There
are about thirty new divorce cases, and ten
suits in chancery OF course the new di-
vorce entries 90 over, under the law until
next term: but on the old docket and stand
ing for trial at this term are twenty-nine
cases for divorce.
There are five civil cases on the docket
still standing for the Jury.