Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1892-10-03
THE COUNTY COURT.

The case of Drew VS.. Cade was the
second case tried by jury. The ac-
ton was assumpsit to recover on three
notes. The defense pleaded accord
and satisfaction. The parties to the
suit were the only witnesses. The
case occupied but one afternoon. Yer
dict for defendant. III. @. Bates and
o. H. Austin for the plaintiff; E. A.
Cook for defendant.
Perry VS. Hancock was an action
af assumpsit to recover on few tons
of hay sold eleven years ago. The
features of the case were the contra
dictory testimony and the length of
argument of the counsel. Verdict
for plaintiff to recover twelve dollars.
H. G. Bates and E. A Cook for plain
tiff: Dickerman and Young for de-
fendant.
Perkins VS.. Mckay. Both parties
to this case reside in Canada. The
action was general assumpsit. The
Jury were unable to agree after being
out all night, and were discharged.
D. w. Richmond for plaintiff; 0. ).
Annis and F. S. Rogers for defendant.
Simpson VS.. Foster. This was an
action of general assumpsit to recov-
er for certain farm produce sold by
plaintiff to defendant. The case arose
from the famous Geo. o. Spaulding
financial complication of last winter.
Great difficulty was experienced in
securing a jury, as nearly all the jury
men had more or less knowledge of
the case. On Wednesday morning,
after delay of two hours, a jury was
secured by drafting three Newport
men into service to complete the un-
| filled panel.
It appeared in evidence that the
defendant, Leonard Foster, who re-
sides in Glover, had acted as agent
for Geo. o. Spaulding, who was large
Iv engaged in the farm produce bus
mess, and in the capacity of agent had
visited many of the towns in Orleans
county. On the 10th day of Novem-
Der, 1891, he met the plaintiff, Geo.
w. Simpson, who is merchant
at East Craftsbury. at Greensboro
Bend The plaintiff there Informed
Foster that he had finished doing bus
mess with Spaulding, whereupon the
defendant, Foster, according to Simp-
sons story, said, ''I will buy your
produce and 1 will pay you for it..
Buy all the produce you can for me
and viii pay you for it'' The plain
tiff introduced several witnesses who
claimed to have heard this conversa-
ton, and upon this contract the plain
tiff claimed to recover for the prod
uce afterwards furnished the defend
ant Spaulding previous to the failure
of the latter.
The defendant denied ever having
any such conversation, or having
made any such trade, and claimed
that the produce purchased by him of
Simpson was purchased as agent OF
Spaulding and not as principal. To
that end he produced evidence to
prove that Simpson understood it
was Spaulding to whom he was giving
credit. Evidence was also given to
show that in conversations previous
to Spaulding's failure, some of plain
tiff's witnesses had stated that Spaul-
ding owed Simpson the amount Simp-
son claimed Foster owed him. The
whole gist of the case was whether
such trade really occurred at Greens
boro Bend or not.
The case occupied two and one hall
days, going to the jury on Thursday
noon. After being out ALL the after
noon, they returned verdict for the
plaintiff to recover the amount claim
ed in his specifications $414.12 an6
his costs. H. @. Bates and F. E. Al
fred for plaintiff; H. F. Graham
, and w. W. Miles for defendant.
Wright VS.. Taplin & Rowell. This
was ''horse'' case, and occupied {
day and half. The jury returned {
verdict for the plaintiff to recover
S107 and his costs. There are some
important law questions connected
with this case and it will probably gt