Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1896-09-18
w1NDHAM COUNTY COURT.
S. III. sherman Won His Case---Verdict
for Defendant in Hidden-HoOIxer
Suit,


Suit.
In the suit of S. H. Sherman VS.. Estey
Organ Co., of which full report was given
last week, the jury returned verdict for
plaintiff for S2425 damages.
George Hidden as. Geo. W. Hooker
This was an action on the case alleging
| fraudulent representation in the matter of
| sale. The evidence on the part of the
plaintiff tended TO show that from July,
$780, to Feb. IA, 1893, the parties were CO.
partners under the firm name of Hooker,
Hidden q Co., in the business of manufac-
| turing and selling overalls, frocks, jumpers,
etc, at Brattleboro. That plaintiff had the
management of the manufacturing and
selling of goods, and the direction of the
help, including the book-keeper, and that
such entries were made in the books as he
directed. That the defendant had the mat
ter of the furnishing of such moneys from
the bank, the negotiating of loans there,
| ETC., under his control and management.
That defendant was at the manufacturing
office frequently and had full access to the
books of the company, and sometimes
made entries therein. That about Jan. l,
1893, plaintiff, with the assistance of the
book-keeper, took an inventory of the assets
of the company consisting of stock goods
ture and bills receivable; also of the liabil-
tiles so far as he knew; but not knowing
the amount of their indebtedness TO the
bank inquired of the defendant, who in
formed him it was SS000 and it was so en-
tered upon the inventory. That soon af-
ter the inventory had been completed, and
being dissatisfied with Mr.. Corser, who was
in their employ under a contract that had
some time to run, and also with his part
ner, the plaintiff notified the defendant of
his desire 10 either sell his interest to de-
tendant, to buy him out, or to close up the
business. That relying upon the truth of
defendants statement that the company
was owing the bank $4,000, he proposed TO
| the defendant that he would sell out his
entire interest in the company for what he
| had invested in it as his share of the cap.
| ital, the balance of salary due him and
| $1,000, bonus, or he would give the defend
ant the same for his interest in the COM
| pany. Each of the partners had put in as
his share of the capital $500 in round
numbers; the plaintiff had a salary of
| $1,000 and interest on his investment. That
| it run along until Feb. IA, when defend
ant notified plaintiff that he would take
the property and pay the plaintiff the
amount he had proposed to sell for; that
| lll6l IL all up anu uue Iue
| plaintiff a little over $500, which he was
paid through Mr.. Dowley of the Vermont
| National bank. That some time after this
matter had been closed up plaintiff discoy-
cred that the firm of Hooker, Hidden &
Co. were not owing the bank $4,000 as de-
| fendant represented, but were only owing
the bank $1,000. That in making his offer
to sell or buy he relied upon what defend
ant had informed him as to the indebted
ness of the company at the bank, and had
defendant truthfully represented it so
should not have sold for the amount he
named, his offer having been predicated
| upon defendants wrongful statement. He
sought to recover one-half of the $1,000,
that being the excess over and above their
actual Indebtedness.
The evidence on the part of the defend
ant tended to show that he never informed
the plaintiff that the company was owing
the bank $4,000; that the books at the
bank were always accessible to the plain
| tiff, showing that at that time their in
debtedness to the bank was but $4,000, and
that statements, from time to TIME, and
especially short time before said inven-
tory was taken, were furnished by the
bank to the plaintiff That defendant had
no knowledge of the manufacturing bust
|
plaintiff and endeavored to prevail upon
him to remain in the business with him; =;
and that it was not until after he had in
duced Mr.. Mitchell to take and pay for
plaintiffs interest that he decided to ac-
cept the offer made. That the parties
signed dissolution papers Feb. IA, defend
ant executed to plaintiff a bond to pay all
the indebtedness of the company. Mr..
Mitchell furnished the money with which
to pay the plaintiff and it was paid him by
Mr.. Dowley by draft on their Boston cor
respondent That defendant had no in
terest whatever in the purchase made by
Mr.. MITCHELL and made nothing through
or by it, except to continue the business in
which he already had an interest, and that
it had since been carried on under the firm
name of Hooker, Corser & Mitchell.
Verdict for the defendant. Fits, Read
and Haskins for the plaintiff; Waterman,
Martin and Hit for the defendant.
StilmGn III. LdzeLl u.s. NelgfGne.-This is
an action on the case to recover damages
by reason of an injury received in being
thrown from bridge, alleged to be defec-
tive and out of repair. The evidence on
the part of the plaintiff tended to show
that on Sept. 20, 1895, he left his home in
East Dover and drove down to Brookside,
III Iuo IoWu VI NeWldnoi W Iho pldOAohlOh
shop of Mr. Whitaker to get his horse
shod. That after his horse had been shod
he started for home, and while crossing
the bridge in question his horse became
frightened at something, backed off over a
log railing, and horse, wagon and driver
, landed on the rocks in the bed of the stream
some 8 or 10 feet below. His wagon and
} harness were somewhat injured, his left
, arm was broken between the wrist and ell
/ bow, head cut and bruised, side, legs and
? back badly bruised. That he was taker
J from the wreck unconscious and lay il
that condition from Friday, the day of the
4 accident, until the next Wednesday, in thu
9 house of a Mr.. Whitaker, near the place
of accident. That the bridge was out o
repair in this, that the only imminent o.
9 railing was log from to 10 inches il
s diameter, and partly decayed. At the enc
of 15 days he was removed home on be-
= in carriage, where he continued to b.
+ sick, lame and sore until the next spring
+ before he went out of the house. That tn
, injuries seriously disabled him from pur
g suing his ordinary avocation as farmer