Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1895-12-19
Windsor County Court.


The verdict In the Adams. Hammono
case was for the plaintin for w osIs ~
and costs. The Chandler nsm !~ ~. S "a
a s went Ia favor Of the plaintln, -. -
and costs. Both cases 60 to the supreme
court on exceptions
BH. Slack ' F. N: Nichols; ~. P n;vsr
til, q contractor, lives st wh III datsnd-
srt sIso lived and practiced the profession
- - vsterinarv surgeon. The case grew out
- ar oral agreement between the parties
Nv Urine 81 which the plaintih was 70 puV
~ ~ harm Tor Nichols. No specinc con-
lat was made. but the claim OF the PLAIN
~ was that he should have $l5O casn
when the barn was finished, and that ne
should thereafter receive no per montn
until the barn was paid for. SLACK was 70
have nave lie I work done by the day, furnish.
inc workmen and supplying materlal ~
the regular going prices. ny wnU.u a ~ ~
amounted TO $3.50, upon wnlcn ne nsu ~
received any payment. a. ~ = riain.
IN claimed. $50 and four monthly pay
ments 81 go. The work was al done ~
0ctoher and the suit was brought ~ FeD'
mary last The defendants version OF the
TO nsaction was that the platinum was 70
srrnish men and material, put upthe Darn
md wait for his payment until 1t could De
,noda IN such amounts as the defendant
MIGHT he able. from time to time,to anord.
There was talk, said the defendant, apout
$50 but it was in this way II piaintin goe
short OF cash and needed any IN the VOL,
he and defendant were to sign note ior
that amount and get the money on u. lne
defendant claimed the charges Ior WorA
and material were excessive, and intro.
dnced evidence OF OF her contractors that
the barn ought to have been put up i0r
s275 or $3.50. The jury returned averdict
Ia plaintiff for $344.13. In answer TO 2
special verdict submitted BY the court,
II waa found that when the suit was
hronc IL there were then due $233. 80. 3.
pinpree for the plaintiff and Vim. Batch
elder for defendant.
Mrs. M. N. Burnham NJ. r: Courser.
The representatives al the plaintih brought
this action in her name to recover on
promissory note OF the following tenor;
BARRE, May II, 1888.
For value received we promise 70 pay
Mrs. M. N. Burnham, or order, $l4O Wild
interest annually, on demand.
THOMAS N. CoURsER.
M. p. COURsER.
After the name Of the defendant Is Inc
word surety, which has line drawn
LQIOdRu nC 0SAShSNaAS
since suit was commenced. The nrst
signer to the note was the defendants "a.
ther and be died score OF years ago. The
defendants counsel objected to the note
on account OF the crossing out OF surety
as appeared. 1t was held, however, that
no presumption OF wrong doing could be
made in that behalf. The defense also
pleaded the statute OF limitations. TO this
reply was made of non.residence IN this
state by defendant during the period since
The note was given. Whep suit was begun
Courser was lessee Of the Junction House
It White River Junction, and the board
bills OF certain boarders were trusteed.
Verdict in favor OF plaintiff for t66s11. 3.
b. Pingree and w. BIC. Stickney Tor those
the plaintiff; VIM. Batchel-
Ter for the defense.
8, E. Pingree, administrator OF j. J. 81
nons' estate, Nelson N. johnson. This
vas an action ot assumpsit to recover the
recount OF an attorney. The afiairs OF Mr..
Unions were placed In the hands OF plain
ID and among them was the account on
uit. The administrator employed as his
to collect the old accounts Alex.
Inder p Nelson, young lawyer located
hen at the junction. The account was
lot deposited but defendant pleaded pay