The Windham County reformer. (Battleboro, Vt.) 1876-1897, 1891-03-20
COUNTY COURT.


the TOwnshend FOlks--The Eddy -sher
man Case Ends In rOsby
& Co., vs.. LamsOn Goes in Favor Of De
fendaut.
Watson s. French VS.. Joseph B. Ware ct ais
The evidence In this case was closed al
noon Friday and the afternoon and a portion
of Saturday forenoon were occupied by argu
ments Of counsel and charge of court. The
jury were out about two hours and rendered
a verdict for the plaintiff to recover 1885,
damages. Waterman, Martin tE Hit and G.
B. Eddy for plaintiff. Haskins & Stoddard
and l.. NJ. Read for defendant.
q. b. and Z. +. Eddy vs.. 5. H. Sherman.-
This was an action of assumpsit to recover
pay for legal services and the defence was {
general denial. The plaintiffs evidence ten
ned to show that In 1888 and 1854 while thu
defendant was treasurer of the Connecticut
River Fire Insurance Co., and was collecting
assessments of the various policy holjers, tina
he. the defendant was troubled by such policy
holders paying their assessments and thet
bringing suits against him individually to re
cover back the sums of money paid by them
that the defendant employed plaintiff firm tC
bring bill In equity against various ones oi
these policy holders and to secure tempo
rary injunction restraining them from bring
ing such vexatious suits; that the services
were rendered for the defendant individually
and not in his capacity Of treasurer of sal,
Insurance Company. The evidence of the
defendant tended to show that at the time
the services were rendered the plaintiff firm
were the Attorneys of the Insurance Com.
pany; that G. F. Eddy, one of the members
Of plaintiff firm, was director In same In
surance Company; that at the time named,
the plaintiff firm had In Its hands for cOllec.
tion large amount of the assessments of
oQf N hof hov
and should have retained their fees from the
money collected by them on such assess.
ments; that the defendant understood the
services were being rendered for and charged
to the Insurance Company and not to HIM,
and that there was an understanding and
agreement to that effect after about half of
the charges had been made. The jury took
the case Monday night, were out all night,
and failed to agree upOn verdict. l.. NJ.
Reed and Haskins & Stoddard for plaintiffs,
Waterman, Martin d Hit and Una H.AlDee
for defendant.
+. Crosby & Co. VS.. Minnie A. Lamson--
This was an action to recover payment for
two Invoices OF grain amounting TO $500
The defence was that the grain was pur-
chased and credit extended to Royal II. Lam
son. brother of the defendant. The evil
dence of the plaintiff tended to show that II.
h. Lamson was in business in grist mill In
East GuilfOrd, under the name and style of
the "Guilford Mill Co." that Minnie A. Lam
son was interested with him In said business !:
that two invoices of grain wer, sold and de-
liTered Il. III LamsOn on the 11th and 18th Of
April 1890 ana that on the next day his stock
of goods and the mill were destroyed by fire /;
that Minnie A. LamsOn In conversation
had with f iward C. Crosby. one of plaintiff
firm, In March 1890 said to him that II X. III.
LamsOn did not paw for grain promptly the
bills might be sent to her and that she would
see that they were paid. The evidence Of the
defendant tended to show that she was en-.
gagged 10 teaching for livelihood; that in
1899 she invested some money that she had IN
erist mill In Gullford and let her brother r.
II. LaMsOn have the use OF the mill to keep
him along; that she was not partner
or interested with him In the business. She
denied that she had any conversation with
Edward G. Crosby In March. 1890 or at any
other time In which she stated TO him that
she would be liable for bills of goods sold to
her brother, II. Fl. Lamson, and claimed that
on Nov. ~, 1889, having learned that Royal
II. was short Of grain aud funds she went IL
the store-house a,'d purchased and paid for
made out to her. that at this time she had
with Edward G. Crosby and
told him that she asked for no credit, but
could and would pay for any grain that she
purchased; that the bills of grain with the
payment OF which plaintiffs sought to charge
her. were charged on the day book and ledg-
er OF plaintiff firm to r. II. Lamson, all bills
were made out to him and that her name did
not appear upon their books at all, and that
she never bad notice that they claimed TO
hold her until she was sued and the loss on
buildings due her from Insurance Company
was trusteed. The jury retdrned verdict
Tor defendant. Haskins and StOddard for
plaintiffs, Waterman. Martin and Hit for
defendants.
The case of William II. Pelton vs. John
savage, an action for damages OccasiOned by
IN assault and battery OF plaintiff at the shops
II $. A. Smith Il Co., in 1850 has been set
led.
Alexander II. Pike VS.. Abei j. Pike.-This
vas an action of general and special assump-
1t. 1t appeared that Ia March 1899 the plain
If sold to the defendant . certain
lmber lot In StrattOn for $3.50, for
which the defendant gave his note and
mortgage on the lot. The plaintiff is the |
wner of saw.mill located about two miles |
rom the lot In question. The evidence Of |
he plaintiff tended to show that there was an |
greement between himself and the defend. |
mt that the logs from this lot should be |
rawn TO the plaintiffs mill, and that this
greement was, In fact, part of :ne consid-
ration. although not expressed In the deed.
nd not nut In writing anyway. The de.
endant claimed that there was no such
greement; that the matter Of drawing the
)gs to this mill was spoken of but was In no |
'ay part OF the trade one or two witnesses
sstified that the plaintiff bad told them that
here was 40 cOntrac, 10 that effect. while
ne or two others testified that the defend
Mt had told them that there was
1ch an agreement. There were one or
wO other minor matters of dispute
etween the parties but they were
The jury rendered a verdict
,r the plaintiff for $l2J. s. s. D,venport
nd Haskins and St0idard for plaintiff.
Waterman, Martin l. Hit for defendant
The case of Joel Leonard vs.. VIM. Hol-
rook. another Townshend assault case. is
ow on trial.
The Criminal Cases.
State VS.. John boy found in
eptember 1885 for breaking jail. by an as
lult upon the jailer and breaking lighted
erOsene lamp upon his head. Respondent
'rzigned and plead guilty. sentenced to three
ears at hard labor In states prison.
Information was filed by the states atior-
~ against the following named respondents:
State VS.. Carpenter ai,as Stanley.-lnfor-
alton flied for larceny Of horse. This Is
e respondent who stole the horse from the
able of John Ray In September 1890. Re-
'ondent arraigned and plead guilty. Sen
need 10 four years at hard labor In statess
'ison.
State vs.. Mark eaworth.-lnformation for
'eaking jail on the fourteenth day of Febru-
v last. Respondent srrsigned aud plead
Iiity. Sentenced to two wears at hard labor
stale's prison.
State VS.. George MIier.-Informa;iop for
eaking jail Feb. l4th last. Responder MT ar
igned aud plead guisy. Sentenced 10 two
'ars at hari labor In states prison.
state We. David Hsrvy.-Information for
eaking jail Feb. I4th last. Respondent ar
.gned end plead guilty. Sentenced 10 two