The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1893-10-25

sance and should be abated; and that in
sending notices and causing the disconnec-
tion the bailiffs acted in pursuance OF the
authority conferred upon them by section
OF the act OF Incorporation and by section
3 Of article Of the bylaws adopted by the
village. The court found that plaintiffs
damage at the time of bringing this suit,
being disconnected as he was, was $50; that
he might, as directed in the notice of July
s, have disconnected his pipe with the vii
lage sewer at small expense, and thus
procured for himself better discharge
than he had before the disconnection.
Judgment for defendant to recover its costs
Exceptions by plaintiff. Martin & Slack
for plaintiff; Barney & Hoar and Shurtleff
for defendant
JOHN TRow " b. #. SMITH.-It appeared
in this case that one Downing, who was
owing plaintiff left with him a horse to sell
at auction and apply the proceeds of said
sale on account existing between plaintiff
and said Downing; that said horse was sold
at auction in April 1892, and was bid off by
defendant for said Downing; that defend
ant took said horse home, and afterwards,
in adjustment of accounts between de-
fendant and said Downing, the horse went
to said Downing; but Notwithstanding ar
rangements made between defendant and
said Downing, plaintiff claimed that paw for
said horse should go to him. Judgment for
defendant to recover his costs. Martin g.
SAWYER V. Cross & SoN.-It appeared in
evidence that in January, 1885, the defend
ants sued out writ against the plaintiff in
general assumpsit, returnable before JUS
tlce OF the peace on the 10th of February,
1888; that the writ was served by leaving
copy with defendants wife in Middlesex at
the then usual place of abode of the plaintiff :
that judgment by default was taken in the
suit on the return day without proving a
ia ~ tha -
the suit, and without the giving of a bond
as the statute provides; nor was the case
continued on notice. No execution was
ever issued on that Judgment but subse-
quently, and on the 10th of June, 1891, the
Judgment in that suit was sued and the case
came into county court by appeal. The
plaintiff Sawyer introduced evidence tend
ing to prove his absence from the state at
the time the aforementioned writ was
served, and also as to his continued absence
until after the return day, and that he had
no notice in effect of the suit. The defendants
introduced evidence tending;to prove the
presence of plaintiff in the state within the
time named that plaintiff had knowledge
of the judgment against him and had had
several interviews with the defendants in
regard to paying per cent on the same.
Judgment for plaintiff setting aside the
Judgment complained Of. and for his costs.
Exceptions by defendants. Shurtleff and
Barney & Hoar for plaintiff; Martin &
Slack for defendants.
A. LUCE v. G. w. DoDGE.-This was an
action on the case. The plaintiff introduced
evidence tending to prove that in the fall of
1891, defendant, who was then first select
man of Berlin, actuated by malice and for
the purpose OF harassing and vexing the
plaintiff, caused the road in front of plain
tiff premises to be so lowered and altered
as to not only make plaintiffs driveway
nearly lmpassable, but to the great damage
of the drain and culvert that plaintiff had
put in at his own expense, and with damage
to his stone wall. The plaintiff claimed
that his property was injured to the amount
OF $500. The defendant and his assistants
in the work, Lawrence, Shambo and DEMO,
testified that whatever was done at this
point of the road was done with view to
benetiting and improving the highway, and
with no malicious intent toward the plain
tift; that the work so done was actually
needed and was benefit to the road The
court found, among other facts, that plain
tiff'S driveway was injured to the extent of
So worth, and that So would put plaintiff s
drain in as good condition as it was before.
Judgment for defendant. Exceptions by
plaintiff G. w. Wing for plaintiff; Dilling-
ham, Huse & Rowland for defendant.
w. C. JONES " F. MEARs.-This was an
action OF assumpsit to recover rent for a GER
tain room which defendant had leased of
plaintitf for term of years, said lease being
in writing. The only question involved was
as to the time the defendant occupied said
premises. The plaintiffs evidence tended
to show that he had always claimed defend
ant was in possession of said premises and
that, although defendant had rendered the
key of said premises, the plaintiff had al
ways refused to accept the surrender of said
premises under the lease by the defendant
but defendant established the fact that in
the summer of 1892 plaintiff caused justice
1ata ha Il
his specifications that defendant surrender
said premises, although a non-suit was later
entered in said justice ejectment case. The
court held that said snit was notice to the
defendant to surrender said premises, and
that plaintiff could recover rent only to the
day of bringing said ejectment suit. Judg-
ment for plaintiff for S53.S7 Shurtletf for
plaintiff; Barney & Hoar for defendant.
MR.. MEARs V. c. E. SHEPARD. - This
was an action of replevin. 1t appeared by
evidence that defendant, while constable
for the town of Marshtield, seized certain
property of plaintiffs by virtue of tax col.
lectors warrant, and sold the same to sat
isfy the claim for unpaid taxes. The plain
tiff repevied said property and introduced
evidence that the listers of said Marshfeld,
in 1891, increased the plaintiffs appraisal
of his stock in trade 81 600, without inspec-
ton as required by law. 1t also appeared
in evidence that the selectmen of said town
placed The tax list with the town treasurer
to collect said taxes; that at the expiration
of ninety days said town treasurer made a
list Of the delinquent Taxpayers in a sep
arate book to which list was attached the
warrant by virtue of which the defendant
seized the plaintiffs property. The court
held that the defendants action was ille-
gal in that said warrant was not attached
to the original list of Taxpayers issued by
the selectmen as contemplated by the stat
ute. Judgment for plaintiff of one cent
damages and cost. Exceptions by defend
ant. Lamson and G. W. Wing for plain
tiff Shurteff for defendant.
II. e. RECORD v. W. K. FIsK-This was
an action of dudita quereld to set aside judg-
ment obtained by defendant against plaintiff
before justice of the peace at Woodbury. on
the 28th of June, 1898 Case partially heard
and left with the court, with the under
standing that the hearing shall be COM
pleted November H. Lamson and G. w.
Wing for plaintiff; Shurtlef and Bullard
for defendant.
HAYWOOD V. HAYwooD.-Divorce. Cause.
refusal TO support.
SHATTUcK V. SHArrUCK.-Divorce Cause
alleged, wilful desertion and refusal to sup.
port. Bill granted for deserton,