The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1891-03-18

wagon and came towards the fighters to
pacify them. He succeeded in his efforts
and separated the young men. His two
sons and Dolby got into their wagon, on the
left-handSide Of which plaintiff was standing.
At this time Locklin came up and stabbed
Herman Hill under the left arm, making
severe cut The plaintiff called out to
Locklin to desist from striking the boy, and
Immediately defendant turned around at
plaintiff and struck several blows at him,
cutting his hat, slightly cutting his head,
and making an ugly cut across the bridge of
the nose. 1t was not light enough to see
any WEAPON in the hands of Locklin, and
none OF the witnesses could swear to seeing
knife or anything else. This was in sub
stance, the evidence as introduced and
claimed by the plaintiff. The defence was
a direct denial. The only witness was the
defendant himself and he gave his version
Of the transaction. He substantially agreed
with the account of plaintiff as to the
teams, and the fact that there was a scuffle.
He, however, swore positively that he did
not strike the plaintiff nor his son, and did
not go near them; that the quarrel was be-
tween him and Dolby and Herman Hill, and
that he did not go near them after they got
back into their wagon. The Jury found in
favor of the plaintiff and returned verdict
for $50 damages and costs. Gordon for the
plaintiff; Wing & Fay for the defendant.
There is on the docket another cause
against the defendant in favor of Herman
Hill, but as IL involved the same issue, it
was continued.
John e. Eddy Us. Gardner P. Winter
This was an action of general assumpst
brought in February, 1890, before justice
and it comes to the county court on appeal.
Mr.. Winter married the daughter of Mr..
Eddy sometime in August, 1887, but she
left the defendants house by reason of his
neglect and refusal to support and main
tain her, and also ill-treatment received
from him and other members of his family,
which consisted OF his father and mother
and three sisters, all of whom lived in one
family. 1t appeared that defendant, as
| plaintiff claimed, on several occasions
wanted his wife to go away and refused to
take care of her; that he told her to pick
up and leave and get out of his house; and
that on the 10th of August, 1887, she went
away. That was the first time she let her
father know anything about it. Her father,
| the plaintiff, lived at Marshtied village.
| She told her father of the trouble she was
in and he Immediately went to talk with
the family. His interview with defendant
| had no result, for defendant refused to do
anything or provide for his wife. That the
plaintiff told defendant some one must look
after the woman and that if her husband
did not, he-Mr. Eddy-would do it and
charge the defendant with the expense
| thereof. This suit is brought TO recover
| what Mr.. Eddy expended and did for Mrs.
Winter until she was able to work and take
care of herself In the year 1888 divorce
was granted to Mrs. Winter on the grounds
of intolerable severity and refusal to sup
| port. This was the claim of the plaintiff
On the part of the defense it was claimed
that Mrs. Winter left her husband of heI
own account and was not sent away by
him; that the divorce case was heard in
March, 1888, and was dismissed, the court
failing to find a case made out by Mrs
Winter; that other cases in court were
ment was entered into that If these cases
were dropped defendant would not con
test the divorce proceedings; and that il
this agreement it was further stipulated
that Mrs. Winter should make no claim foi
alimony. Verdict for plaintiff-recovers $50
Mrs. Betsy Arbuckle Us. Charles Temple
ton.-The plaintiff brought this suit to re
cover the amount due on promissory not,
dated April 20, 1879, payable on demand
and signed by l.. L. Mallory and Charles
Templeton, the defendant. The defendan
resisted the demand upon the ground tina
he was only surety and that he had not
for period of more than six years before
the commencement of this suit, made an,
payment on the note or in any other wa.
recognized the note in the question. Th
note in suit is for seven hundred dollars
which amount was loaned to Mallory. Th
loan was negotiated by the defendant, an,
when Mrs. Arbuckle consented to lend the
Tempeton should sign the note with Nal
lory. The plaintiff claims that the defend
ant, through Mr.. John Willard, onlthe 30tl
of July, 1884, made payment of fifty dol
lars on the note in question As to whethe
or NOT this payment was made by MI
, Templeton, was the main thing to b
determined in the suit. The note itsel
bore an endorsement of fifty dollar
paid by Mr.. Charles Templeton," dated a
/, above. This endorsement was in the hand
writing of Mrs. Arbuckle, and the amour
was given to her by John Willard, who
now dead. Plaintiff claimed she went t.
see defendant about the note short tim
after this $50 was paid by Willard, and tina
the endorsement was then on the note; tina
on another occasion she met Mr. Templeto
at the Montpelier depot, and asked him
he didn't remember sending this amour
by Mr.. Willard; that he-Mr. Templeton-
replied: 81 don't know as L do; have yo
, got my receipt for it? Several witnesse
, were called by plaintiff, who testified t.
, having seen this endorsement on the not
soon after it was put on. The defendan
stated he did not send any money by vii
lard, and never in any manner paid any
thing on the note. Mr.. Mallory testihe'
that every item of payment appearing o.
, the note was made by him, and that Temple
, ton had never, to his knowledge, directl
or indirectly, paid anything on the note
Mr.. Barber testified to seeing the note in tn
court of insolvency on the hearing of tn
Mallory failnre and that the note di
; not then bear any such endorsement
only $50 in figures were written on the bac
OF the note. At a later hearing the endorse
ment did appear and was copied by Judg
Carleton upon the papers. The case wen
, to the jury yesterday and they came int
: court twice disagreed. The second tim
was about half-past five in the afternoon
; when they were sent back, courteously, b
the presiding judge, to reconsider the case
: Wing * Fay and Mr.. Lamson for the plain
tiff, and John g. Wing and s. G. Shurtle
for defendant.
Yesterday afternoon was taken up tn
case of
Clinton French Us. d. Edgar French, a
action of assumpsit. The parties ar
brothers. One lives at Cleveland and tn
other at Milwaukee. They were original
from Barre, and several years ago the d,