Spirit of the age. [volume] (Woodstock, Vt.) 1845-1913, 1895-12-14

on being opened was found to be ii
favor of the plaintiff for SIS and III.
tercst, and costs. Dwight had paic
fifty dollars to plaintiff on account
but explained that he had paid it or
the request of, and for, the Ham
mond brothers. This. however, wa,
denied by them. Fred c. Davis and
VIM. L. Johnson appeared for plant
if, G. y. Davis and J. w. Pierce
for the defendant.
The next case was: John X.
Chandler VS. Fred &. and Dwight S.
Hammond.
This case was one which depend.
cd largely upon the same testimony
as the one preceding. When the
jury brought in Il verdict in the
Adams case, the result was not an
nounced, in order not to prejudice
the disposition Of the Chandler case.
In the latter case the recovery sought
was SIS for Il COW. John Ham
mond went to Chandler and made Il
bargain for the animal in August,
and towards the latter end of Sep
tcinher it was delivered at the mar
kct and received by Fred 6. Ham
mond. Dwight was not consulted
especially in regard to the purchase
of this COW, but it was urged that.
he and Fred being in partnership,
the purchase by Fred was binding
also on Dwight and made him re-
sponsiblc. There was no defence
made for Fred, the case being con-
tested by Dwight on the grounds al
ready stated of non-partncrship.
The jury gave plaintiff a verdict
in this case also, and for the sum of
$23.6o. The balance of the SIS
had been received by the plaintiff in
supplies furnished from the market,
for which the plaintiff gave defend
ants credit. Fred G. Davis for the
plaintiff, Gilbert A. Davis and +.
w. Pierce for defendants.
Bert II. Slack VS. +. Nj. Nichols :
Action of aSsumpsit to recover S3S5
for building Il barn at White River
Junction for the defendant. The
plaintiffs claim was that he was to
receive $3.50 when the barn was
completed, and to receive the rest in
small payments; and that defendant
was to pay whatever it cost at a rea-
sonallc price at that rate, built by
the day, at the regular price per day,
material to he furnished at the same
price as plaintiff was selling to other
people. The defendant claimed
plaintiff was to put up the barn and
that defendant might pay for it along
as he could, and If plaintiff got
cramped for money. they would put
Il note in the bank, and if defendant
was unable to pay it 1t the time it
was due they would run it along.
There was no trade to pay any sum
down. or anything of the kind as
defendant claimed. Pingree for
plaintiff, Batchclder for defendant.
The jury found for the plaintiff IN
the whole sum Of S34+.I5. and of
this they found $4,000 due IN Feb
ruarv last. when the suit was
brought.
Nj. y. Burnham VS. NJ. Z. Courser:
Action to recover on promlssory
note of $r.Io given III 1868. The
plea was that the note was outlawed,
as would appear by its date. To
this plaintiff replied that defendant
had not been in the state and had
had no attachable property. De-
PENDANT is dead. but when the suit
was brought he was keeping the
Junction House at White River
Junction. y verdict for the plaintiff
for SS60.l7 was returned. ). +.
Pingrcc. w. b. {. Stickney for
plaintiff, VIM. Batchcldcr for the
defendant.
:. T.. Pingrce. administrator, VS.
Nelson ;. Johnson: Assumpsit to
recover an attorneys account.
Plaintiff was administrator of LAWYER
John J. Symonds, late of White