The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1892-09-21
NUMBER 3S.

Cleveland there were thirty gallons less
than when the goods were sent away. The
jury found in favor of the plaintiff in the
sum of S33.37 damages and costs +. L.
Laird and JohnlH. Senter for the plaintiffs
Edward w. Bisbee for the defendants.
Joseph II. Ward, Fred A. Slayton and
! George A. Towne V. II. o. Camp-In this
case the plaintiffs sought to recover damages
OF the defendant upon the ground that, in
| selling to them a certain horse he had
guaranteed to give them good clean title
thereto. 1t was agreed upon both sides that
in selling this horse he acted as a deputy
| sheriff and sold the animal on attachment.
/ The horse was one owned by Mr. McKane
and had been attached on a Judgment OBJ
tanned against McKane by a creditor. Dur
ing this sale one Of the plaintiffs, acting for
the other two, bid off the horse for SS3.
While the bidding was proceeding it was
claimed by plaintiffs and their witnesses
that defendant Camp said he would guaran-
tee a clear title to the animal to whomso-
ever might bid it off. The plaintiffs had
joined together to take one-ihird interest
each in the horse. Mr.. Towne paid Camp
by check for the SS3, and claimed that be-
fore handing the check over to Camp he
made inquiries, and that Camp again said
he would guarantee good title to the
mare. Soon after the purchase the animal
was taken away from the possession of the
plaintiffs on lien in favor of another cred
tor of McKane. 1t was urged that this
last lien was not valid and hence that
Camp had given a good title to the horse
sold even if he had so promised But he
denied having done So and introduced two
witnesses, o. B. Boyce and Fred p. Care-
ton, both of whom stood near Camp at the
auction, and they swore he said nothing
of the kind The plaintiffs claimed that
they bought the mare relying upon the
guarantee of Camp, and brought this action
to recover the value of the animal, which
was testified to be worth S125. The jury
found for the plaintiff, to recover the sum
Inf dam nrah wrvfNI t..4n
on the amount of the verdict from July 20,
J 1891. Martin & Carleton and w. A. Lord
for the defendant; e. w. Bisbee and j. P.
Lamson for the plaintiffs.
John o. Miller v. L. j. Boster.-In this
case the plaintiff sought to recover Of the
defendant damages, which he claimed to
, have sustained through the negligence OF
the defendant in consequence of which
negligence certain derrick fell upon the
plaintiff. The evidence in the case tended
to show that in the month of April of last
year the defendant was putting up a new
block on North Main street in the village of
Barre. The plaintiff had been working on
, the National Life building at Montpelier
2 as bricklayer and having concluded his
Z work thereon, was looking for employment
9 at his vocation. He had heard through a
5 friend that Mr.. Bolster wanted help, and
went to Barre to see the defendant. The
result of this interview was that the plain
= tiff was told to come the next week and 90
the interview with Bolster, Mr.. Miller
q went to Barre, reaching there about mid
day. He was met by another bricklayer
: and went to the Bolster building on North
: Main street Mr.. Miller left his valise and
T tools at the building in progress. 1t was
1 then dinner time, and, after leaving his
n tools, Miller went snd saw Mr.. Bolster to
!. talk about working, but on account of the
non-a arrival of some iron-work, Mr.. Bolster
e was not ready to proceed with the brick
= work. Mr.. Miller then went to the Bolster
block to get his TOOLS and when Just under
: the derrick the latter fell down upon him
# and wounded him as stated. The cause of
|, the derrick falling. as it appeared from the
r evidence of Mr.. Dolby and others, was the
IF throwing down of a heavy piece of timber
# by Dolby. The plaintiff was knocked down
r. and received number of small injuries and
q had one of his hips dislocated The in
n juries then and there received the plaintiff
s. is still suffering from, and can do no work
d He is a man over sixty years of age and has
e not been able to do any work since he was
), hurt. Doctors Worthen and Lamb of Barre
:. testified to the nature and extent of the
It plaintiff injuries. The testimony on the
d part of the plaintiff tended to show, further
t, that the derrick was not set up plumb, but
s. was leaning over somewhat toward the
n sidewalk, and that some of the guy-ropes
r, had been Slackened in front in order to al
et low of the placing OF over-layer timbers on
q the first story floor. 1t was claimed for the
,r plaintiff that the position of the derrick,
5, and the manner in which it was secured,
IS was inadequate and unsafe, and hence the
" defendant was negligent in that respect.
The testimony of the defendant tended to
show that Mr.. Bolster had taken all the
precautions he could in order to avoid ac-
4 cidents that he had secured a vote of the
village bailiffs allowing him to use part
le of the highway, and the sidewalk,
to place his building material on,
le and that the sidewalk was so
blocked at the time of the accident. Mr..
no1r r1nt tl..x Ia. -
C. Lane, tended to show that Miller had not
been employed by Bolster up to the time OF
IN the accident, and that in going to the build
ST ing the plaintiff did so at his own risk, not
being there by the invitation or permission
or of the defendant. The testimony intro
ra duced by the defendant tended to show that
the injury of the plaintiff was the result of
"A an accident pure and simple, for which the
IA defendant was in no way responsible and
10 could not have prevented. In the rebuttal
it was claimed that by the "permit" given
m from the village authorities to Mr. Bolster,
IN he was to put fence and walk around the
lg part of the public street and highway
blocked up by Bolster, and that he had uot
le complied with this condition, so that he
Dr. could not avail himself of the permission SC
III as to excuse himself from liability in the
to premises 1t was urged that inasmuch as
Miller had received encouragement from the
defendant, and promises OF work, that he
was on the premises by the implied invita-
tion OF MIR. Bolster, and that the latter owed
a legal duty to the plaintiff to have things
ST about lhe building in a reasonably safe con-
dition for workmen and the public passing
V. and repassing the building The jury, on
Of Tuesday morning, returned verdict in IA
~ vor of the plaintiff in the sum of 81, $50 dam,
r. ages aud costs. The case goes to the su-
IN preme court on exceptions by the defend
&C ant Dillingham; & Huse, and Martin &
he Carleton, for plaintiffs Wing & Fay, and
d. Boyces, for the defendant.
h. The Jury was sent home until next Mon-
ne day, and court business will be transacted
IS until such time as the grand jury reports.
iise ie Yesterday afternoon was occupied by a
20 hearing before his Honor, Judge Ross, sit
-, N ting as chancellor, on a motion to dissolve
Dn the injunction granted by Judge Thompson
~ in the case of certain granite manufacturers
a. of Barre V. Barclay Brothers. An effort
~ was made to have the case continued unit
~ ~ the first day of the general term, and then
,iis be hsard by the full bench sitting with
rs rs judge Ross. Huse & Dillingham;, on be-
u ~ half of Barclay Brothers, desired a hearing
u at the preSent time. and arpumants warf