The Windham County reformer. (Battleboro, Vt.) 1876-1897, 1895-09-27
THE COUNTY COURT.
A Cas-. That Emphasizes the Need of n
Naiued Policy lava stock Deal Case
from BrattiebOrO.

n tnst fhat Emphasizes the Need OF n
Valued Policy Lava stock Deal Case
from BrattiebOrO.
The case of the Vermont Machine
co. V. Batcheleler q Co.. on trial
when we went to press. finally resulted
after over two weeks struggle in a
verdict for defendent. The length of
the trial is accounted for by the fact
that the contract was that the evapora
tor sold defendent should do as good
work as any other and besides the
dispute whether it was given a fair
trial, witnesses were summoned from all
over the state to swear pro and con as
to its merits. Several thousand dollars
were spent in the trial. Reed and
Haslsins & Stoddard for plaintiff,
Lamson and Waterman, Martin d
Hit for defcndepf
Cayanaugh v Vermont Savings
bank. Evidence of plaintiff tended to
show that Bridget Cavanaugh. maid
en- lady who came to this country
about 20 years ago, had deposit up
to the $50, 600 limit, and sent for her
niece, Mary, and thereafter deposited
in the latter's name. until finally when
she demanded the money the bank re-
fused it on the gronund that the con
tract, as show by the deposit book re
quired order for transfer from the de
positor whose name appears on the
book and if theres was a controversy
between the two they must settle it,
When the plaintiff rested. defendent
moved for verdict on the ground that
the bank never promised to pay
Bridget anything. The court took
this view and ordered verdict for de
fendent. Haskins X Stoddard for
plaintiff. Waterman, Martin & Hit
for defendant.
Powers V. New England Insurance
Co., was an action to recover insur-
ance 500 on house and 5000 ON furn-
ture, from accidental fire at Newfane
May ,. 1894 The next day after the
fire plaintiff wrote Sherman x JENNIE.
agents, asking them to assist in collect
ing the insurance. They notified the
company and got a reply that it would
be attended to in the near future
june IA they wrote again, and the re-
ply was that Mr.. Bagley. the general
agent and adjuster. would attend to
it the next week. Still again thev
wrote the next week and got the same
reply. Soon after Bagley came down
and agreed to pay 500 for the furni-
ture but claimed that the house
wansn't worth 500. In the meantime
the 30 days had passed, in which the !
policy required sworn statement of |
loss &c. to be furnished. certified by |
the nearest magistrate, had expired, |
and the company undertook, to take ad-
vantag. of the expiration which ii had |
secured by its putting of letters In |
the trial this was the defense with the
technical point that the declaration
didn't set forth the policy verbatim
Th plaintiff claimd the declaration TO
be sufficient and the court 50 held,
The plaintiff, claimed in regard to the
sworn statement that the company was
stopped by its letters, and ii would be
plain fraud to allow it to get out of bay
nent in this way. The court charged
hat the company was stopped if plain
iff relied on the representations of these
etters and if defendant had reason to
believe they reached Powers. The jury
eturned verdict for full amount of
lain S700 and interest. Fits. and
Waterman. Martin 4 Hit for plaintiff,
Judge F. NJ Butler for defendant. |!
The next case was Mary Ritter Shea
:. Stanley l.. Smith. Evidence of
plaintiff tended to show that Oct. 6.
81 she gave Smith 10 shares National
Tube Co stock with directions not to
ell for less than $40 a share and giving (
i'm two years time to do it in, that
he same week he sold it at s40.5
nd had never accounted for it To her.
Defendant claimed he was to have the J
walls for two years, to deal in stock J
n margins and account to her for the {
walls at the end of that time. He {
reduced a receipt to this effect which '
e gave soon after, claiming that Miss
hea took it without objection. She l
lained that when he showed it to her J
G said she didn't understand it and |
roposed to consult lawyer, which !
ne declined 70 do. and then she said /
be would take it as a receipt until t
er father returned, and when the /
itter returned he wrote calling on L
mith for the stock or its equivalent, c
nd the matter was afterward placed in /
ol. Dowley's hands who offered to take a
le stock or whatever Smith had put I
he money into. or note all of which /
mith refused Defendant had d letter I
hich he claimed, to show the contract q
J he claimed and it seemed so. but she t
it. Verdict for plaintiff for b
iii amount of claim. Waterman, h
[artin & Hit for plaintiff, Haskins Il v
toddard and 4. f. Cudworth for de n
.ndant.
Stebbins V. Thomas and Trus. was o
Dntinued. The two cases Reed V.
rosby were settled. Mcclure V. Cas-
want was continued on terms by o
application. V
\ divorce was granted TO Ella NJ. u
avne of Londonderry from DIR. Geo. a
/. Payne of Boston who has summer
,me. Hermitage at Londonderry. \
'i'i'' i