Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1896-03-27
BRATTIEBoRO FRIDAY, MARCH ~,
wINDHAM COUNTY COURT.

7 10
fresne.-In this reported last week the jury
returned a verdict for plaintiffs for Sigs 6s dam
ages
j. H. Richmond, Err, u.s. Christine Betterley
This was action brought by the executor of
Vinal Keith, deceased, to recover the amount of
a pronissory note alleged to have been lost or
destroyed
The evidence on the part of the plaintiff tended
to show that the said Ninal Keith was taken sick
in November, 1894, and died Feb. 3, 1895. That 10
December there was discovered among his papers
a promiss)ry note for $3.50 dated In July. 1893
payable to said Keith or order and signed by the
defendant and her husband. Thomas F. Better
ley That about the first of January, 1895, said
Keith called Thomas f. Betterey into the house
where he was sick and had an interview alone
with him for about five minutes. 4 hat after Mr.
Keith died the note was not to be found among
his papers. nor did he have any money about
him, except some small change. No evidence
was submitted 10y the defendant. The court d
rected the jury to render verdict for the plain
tiff for the amount of the note and interest, to
which direction the defendant took exceptions
Waterman, Martin & Hit for the plaintiff.
Haskins & Stoddard aud Reed for defendant,
Alfred L. Howard rs. Charles 4. Barreh.-This
was an action of general assumpsit The evil
dence of the plaintiff tended to show thHt Sept
e, 1891, he sold to the defendant horse for the
agreed sum of 500. for which the defendant gave
him note for SOS signed by W. II. Barrett and
himself, to be paid April l. 1895, and the balance
of S35 was to be paid IN 10 days. That neither
the note nor the S35 had been paid. The evidence
of the defendant tended to show that he did not
buy the horse of plaintiff, but that it bought
by his brother, w. II. Barrett, who wanted TO use
it on a milk wagon That plaintiff warranted
that after a week s use on the milk wagon the
horse would stand without hitching That said
VIM. II. Barrett gave his note for SOS and de
PENDANT signed il as a surety for his brother.
That the horse would not stand without hitching,
but ran away twice, doing considerable damage,
and that VIM. H. Barrett afterwards sold the
horse for about $50. That in April, 1885 said w.
II. Barrett rendered the p aintn the amount of
note and interest Dt that Dalutltt refused to
ceve it unless said W H. Barrett Won pay the
balance of S35, which he refused to do claiming
that he had suffered damage on account Of the
horse running away to offset that amount. The
PENDANT also claimed that he assumed no liaOil-
lty for the S35 and that, being a surety only on
the note, the offer of the principal to pay it
lieved him from further liability thereon. The
plaintiff denied that he warranted that the horse
would stand without being hitched but informed
DO Il defendant and W. II. Barrett that it had run
away once, and for that reason it was sold at
small price compared with what the horse would
have been worth had it not been for that. Also
denied that defendant was but a surety on the
note, claiming that he principal, a well as
was his brother. That the trade was made with
the defendant and credit was given to him for the
price of the horse
Verdict for plaintiff for sizes 81.
Waterman. Martin * Hit for plaintiff
Fits and Haskins x Stoddard for defendant
This was the last of the jury cases left standing
on the civil docket, and the criminal cases were
then taken up.
State rs. John O. CiHiDlings-In Ind ctment for
an assault with intent to kill one Jane Thomas.
The evidence on the part of the state tended to
show that there was i'll feeling existing between
the respondent and the said Jane Thomas grow.
ing out of prosecution " hiCh the respondent be-
lieved was instituted against him by the aid Jane
for selling and furnishing liquor TO her husband
and others. The parties lived in the little village
Of HOughtonville in the town of Grafton. at which
place the respondent kept a grocery store. That
few days before July 4, 1875, the respondent IN
vited some of his companions to meet at his store
the evening of July to celebrate with him the
GLORIOUS Fourth. That he procured a flag which
he flung out from over his store door, procured
some liquor and made up rum punch for re-
freshmen during the night, and couple Of an
wills gun and gunpowder. with which to usher in
the morning of the Fourth. There was evidence
tending to show that the respondent said that he
proposed to celebrate the night and would clean
out the whole street from Thomas's TO the upper
end thereof. That having "nquoredup with the
lemonade prepared with a stick in it," they be-
began to fire the anvs and gun soon after mid.
night, near the store and in the highway in front
of the Thomas house That Mrs. Thomas. her
grandson and granddaughter took their position
in the kitchen, sitting in front OF the window, TO
watch the proceedings OF the crowd out In the
highway tine room being dark with no ght burn
ing therein. That about o'clock the respondent
came out into the highway armed with a double
barreled gun, raised IL up exclaiminR Now I'll
give the Tholnases hi, and fired The charge
of leaden slugs, with which 1t appeared To have
been loaded, struck the window casing, several
passed through the window breaking out three
panes Of glass, and several Of them lodged in the
partition on the other side of the room One slug
passed through the hair of the granddaughter.
The broken glass wounded the face Of Mrs.
homas and the grandson was thrown backward
upon the floor. After this the crowd moved off
up st eet and kept up their noise and firing until
about O'Clock in the morning.
The evidence on the part of the respondent
tended TO show that he did not fire the gun on the
occasion when the window was shattered, but
that il wa fired by some one else. That the re
spondent did not know that any one was sitting
In tine kitchen that night or morning, as the room
was dark during all the time that they were out
i'm tht. highway That he had feelings Of i'll.
will against Mrs Thomas. and had no reason for
attempting to do her injury, and had never
threatened to do so.
Verdict of guilty Of an assault with intent to
kill as charged in The indictment, accompanied
with the unanimous expression OF the jury re-
commenting the respondent TO the mercy Of The
court
States Attorney Fits for the prosecution,
Robb and James &. Martin for the defendant.
State as. Watson S. French. Indictment for
breach of the peace. The evidence on The part of
the state tended to show that while the respondent
was confined in the house of correction his chill
dren became charge as paupers upon the town
of Wilmington. That the overseers of the poor
of said Wilmington, under the provisions OF the
statute in such cases. bound his minor son, Will
ford French, TO William Winslow of Bratteboro
until the boy attained his majority. That after
the respondent was released from prison, he WIS.,
tied Brattleboro, took a team and drove to Mr..
Winslow's house, and from there into the field.
where Winslow and the boy were at work, and
took the boy by force, placed him in his wagon
and endeavored TO drive away with him. Wins
low and his hired man took up the planks of
bridge over which he was TO cross with his team
and DISTRACTED his driving away until they could
send for an officer aud have French arrested.
The evidence on the part of the respondent
tended to show that he never relinquished his
right and authority of this boy. That July Is,
1898, he drove to Winslows after the boy and got
peaceable possession of him and should have |
driven away with him if he had not been hindered |
in so doing That he made no disturbance in |
what he did, but did his work quietly and peace
ably.
Verdict guilty
Fits for the state, Weston, and Hit for the re-
spondent.
State u.s. f. W. Observation-Disclosures by the
states attorney for practicng dentistry without |
a license from the state DE- ntal board,
The evidence on the part of the state tended to |
show that the respondent lived in the village of
Saxtons River. That he had never received |
from the state dental board a license TO practice
dentistry in this state That he had been in Sax
tons River about two years had room or Office |
which he occupied, and in it a dental chair, /
tools for extracting teeth and some other tools |
used in filling teeth That the outside of the |
building was a sign which read "Dr. f. W. Phin- |
ney." That on one occasion he filed cavity in |
tooth of one person, and on another occasion he
furnished set of false teeth for another person.
teeth, but testified It was good job and fitted |
well. The respondent did not offer any testi- |
mony.
Verdict, not guilty.
Fits for the state.
Waterman, Martin & Hit for respondent.
In the case of Reed VS.. Starkey reported last |
week. the verdict was for the return OF the prop |
erty to the defendant and one cent damages, in |
stead of to the plaintiff as there stated.
A mans health is the RIM.