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

The outlook It the present writing Il
that the coming week will be used mp II
the trial OF civil cases. There will nc
doubt be week or two tn duration Of
criminal trials. In addition 70 the STATE
cases ON the old docket, Of which there arr
ten or twelve, the grand jury reported I
! fresh batch on Saturday morning. When
| that body presented to the court the result
Of it, investigation, It was Z sum total Of
| twenty nine matters enquired into dur
| ing the brief four days session-an exam
pie Of expeditions dischage OF pnblic duty
that some counties-an interior one To
might profit By. Twenty-one true bills
and eight not found was the exact count.
The following civil cases have been thus
far tried BY jury:
Frank w. Watkins Wallace 8. Rist.
This was an action Of trespass to land. Mr..
Rist owned pasture next south OF the
pasture owned by Mr.. Watkins in the town
OF Reading, just below Felchville. 1t was
conceded that there was division line
fence between the two adjoining proper
ties. The evidence introduced BY the
plaintiff tended to show that for five
or six years the plaintiff had rented his
pasture to 2 Mr.. Carpenter. When y came
round to the spring Of 1892, Mr.. Carpenter
WYNN nVv AAlkS sASS Raoo040 oAAy AAACAS va
account OF the condition OF the fence be.
tween the plaintiffs pasture and that Of
Mr.. Rist. During the spring Of 1892, on
several occasions, Mr.. Watkins went to the
defendant and asked him to put up bis
part Of the division fence, telling him be
wanted to turn his cattle into the pasture.
When these requests we're made, Mr.. Htst
would make excuses; once he was too busy
and at another time be said he had to go
q fishing and various other excuses were
made, but the defendant did not 60 and
repair his part Of the fence or do anything
about 1t until nearly September. Mr..
house and farm and could see Rist's cattle
up there and he called Mr.. Rist's attention
to the matter, but be would do nothing
about it. Finally the plaintiff took his
hired man and went and repaired de-
fendant's fence. One Of the COWS Of the
defendant was very unruly one and had
to have poke on 1t. The plaintiff tried
to keep his oxen in his pasture but was
compelled to take them away because OF
the poor condition OF the Defendants
fences. This was the claim Of the plaintiff
and the basis OF his claim for damages.
On the part Of the defendant 1t was in
sisted that the cattle got over the plain
tiff's fence and that whatever entries were
uJduC w uClCuuaut . CAbViC INV sA1C OAAoo
OF the plaintiff were made by passing over
and through that part OF the fence which
it was the duty OF the plaintiff to keep in
repair and maintain. Defendant claimed
it asIsolely on account OF the insufficien-
cy Of the plaintiffs fence that the cattle
trespassed into the plaintiffs pasture. De-
PENDANT therefore urged that 1t did not
signify whether his fence was in good or
bad condition in this view OF the case, be-
cause the damages resulted as stated from
the plaintiffs own negligence In the re-
spect indicated However that might be,
defendant insisted that his fence was all
right anyway.
The case resulted in verdict for the de-
PENDANT to recover his costs, which was q
decision entirely opposite to the result OF
the former trial OF the case in June, 1894,
when the plaintiff recovered verdict OF
$40 and his costs. The case was on excep-
tiocs reversed by the supreme court and
thus came up for new trial. Gilbert A.
Davis and w. e. johnson for plaintiff;
Stickney and Sargent for defendant.
George H. Adams Dwight s. and Fred
c. Hammond. This was an action OF as
sumpsit to recover the balance claimed to
be due on the purchase OF yoke Of cattle