Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1896-11-13
wINDHAM COUNTY COURT.
A Victory for A. w. ChIlds g. Goethe
Celebrated Marlboro Pond Case Now
on TrtnI.

Victory for A. w. ChIIds g. Goethe
Celebrated Marlboro Pond Case Now
ON Trial.
county court re-convened at Newfane
tuesday, after a recess of five weeks.
Judge Start can give only two weeks to
this term, hence, all the business will be
done this week and next week. The iurv
came back, as there were quite a number
of cases set for jury trial The first was
the Imperial Insurance company of Lon
don VS.. A. w. Childs & Co. of Brattleboro.
The action was for negligence of the de-
PENDANTS in cancelling policy, and the
amount sought to be recovered was $1,000.
LIZ appeared that the defendants were
agents of the plaintiff company in writing
and placing insurance in Brattleboro and
vicinity, and that they placed policies for
Y. M. Russell, the Wilmington insurance
broker; that, on Aug 10, 1895, they wrote
policy in plaintiff company for Mr. Rus
sell on the mill property of the North
River Manufacturing company of Jackson
Vile; that on Aug. Fl the company, after
receiving the delayed report of the policy,
wrote the defendants stating that for GER
tain reasons they did not wish to carry the
risk, and requested that the policy be can
celled and returned; that the defendants
on the 22d received this letter, and imme-
diately wrote Mr.. Russell, making the
same request. Mr.. Russell received their
letter on Aug "a, and on Aug. q wrote to
the manager of the North River company
to return the policy; that the manager was
| away from home, and returned on the
30th, the morning of which day the mill
burned with the policy uncancelled. BY
the terms of the policy the insured was en-
| titled to five days notice of cancellation.
The plaintiff claimed the defendants
should Immediately by telephone or mail
have notified the North River company
direct and not through RUSSELL and that
their failure so to do was negligence
Further, that Russell in this matter was
the agent of the defendants and they were
responsible for any negligence of his, and
the plaintiff claimed that it was negligence
for Russell to delay writing to the North
River company after he received notice
from Childs. The defendants claimed
there was no legal obligation on them to
cancel policies; that the custom of cancel
lation was, when the policy was placed
through broker, to notify the broker; that
the custom was to take in some instances
as long or longer time for cancellation,
as was, in fact, taken in this case, all OF
which they claimed the plaintiff we'll knew
from the fact of its special agents who had
been here and were familiar with the prac.
tice. The verdict was in favor of the de-
PENDANT. Waterman, Martin and Hit fol
plaintiff, Fits for defendant.
The next case was the celebrated Mari
boro pond case, New England Trout and
Salmon club VS.. George Mather. This
case, it will be remembered, has been to
supreme court once on legal questions, and
is now in county court for trial of the
facts. Jury was empaneled Thursday
morning, and the case is still on trial, anC
will take all, if not more, than this week tC
finish.
The plaintiffs opened by introducing
what they claim to be the original charter
of the town and successive deeds to show
title to the pond and the land around II
which they claim. The defendant insisted
that the paper produced was not the char
ter upon which the town was finally occu
pied, that the deeds introduced do no
show title to the property, either of tn
pond itself, or the land surrounding it, il
the plaintiff club. Fifty-five deeds wer
introduced and read to the jury Thursday
and large number of witnesses will be ex
amined before the close of the trial.
Waterman, Martin & Hit and James K
Bachelor for the plaintiff. Fits an
Read for the defendant.