Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1895-04-05

Paper Co., as the kind and quality they desired to
purchase and such required i'm their busi-
ness: That after said plaintiff had returned home
to MASSACHUSETTS, they had some written CORE
spondence relative to the lumber to be furnished
That plaintiffs represented their sidings to be of
good width and quality. That subsequently they
received one carload which was of a inferior
quality, and in no respect equal to the lumber
that was shown plaintiff when at Putney That
1t was very narrow, some of it having evidently
been sawed from small chestnut poles and con.
tanned the heart Of the tree, was badly worm
eaten, affected with dry rot and of use to them
whatever. The defendants at once notified plain
tifls not to forward any more unless of a better
quality than the car they had received. Plain
tins sent on another carload which defendants re.
ceived but was Of an inferior quality to that first
sent. Whereupon they countermanded all fur
Their shipments absolutely refusing to take any
more. That the Sl2S50 rendered and accepted by
plaintiffs attorney was all the lumber was worth
which they received of plaintiffs and more than
II was fairly worth. The court decided that the
SIPS 80 paid was a fair price for the lumber re
ceived; that it was not of the quality called for
by the contract, and defendants were justified in
refusing to receive the balance. and rendered
judgment in favor Of the defendants
Fits fer the plaintiffs
Haskins & Stoddard for defendants,
j. o. FoilettrS D. q. Siumicay. Action against
defendant as sheriff in not taking a sufficient re-
pleyln bond. The evidence of the plaintiff tended
to show that one Watson French brought suit
against him to rtplpvy "A sorrrl mare of the value
of Sl5O. That defendant served the writ 10y re-
plevylng the mare, delivering 1t over to French
and accepting "A bond Of $500 signed by SAID
French and one Lewis ). Earl a. surety. That
plaintiff ut the time protested to defendant that
the bond he was taking not good and that
defendant ought not to accept It That defend
ant replied that if it turned out that the bond was
not good he, defendant, or his bondsrnen would
nave TO make it good. That said French was
worthless and that Earl was wholly insufficient at
the time surety on the bond That after three
trials in the county court and one IN the supreme
court plaintiff obtained Judgment against French
Tor return OF the mare and his costs. That said
mare never was returned, but French had taken
her out of the state. That plaintiff brought suit
against French and Earl on said bond. recovered
Judgment, but had only realized Sl3j thereon
That there was still a balance due HIM. and for
which he sought to recover about STD
The evidence of the defendant tended to show
that the surety Earl was at the time reputed to
be good for $500 TO 5000 That the plaintiff made
no serious objection To the suflcieucy Of the
bond. That subsequently. and with the consent
Of the plaintiff he took Of French a mortgage of
said mare for their mutual benefit, but never re-
ceived anything thereon.
The court reserved its decision.
Haskins a Stoddard for plaintiff
Waterman, Martin y Hit for defendant.
Judgments were entered up in many
other cases pending in court, and the dock
ct was pretty thoroughly cleaned up This
was one of the longest spring terms in any
recent year. Nineteen days were occupied
in jury trials, and the business of the SEES
sion was accomplished in a very satisfac-
| tory way. OF lS7 cases on the law and
chancery docket at the beginning of the
| term 50 were disposed of.