Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1896-06-18


1 The state convention somewha. inter.
| fered with the progress OF the business OF
| the court, as a largo number OF those who
| were IN attendance at court were interes :
ed in the severa! conventions elmer as del
: egaies or candidates or supporters. On
| Friday last recess was taken until Thurs
1 day morning, there being no Case ready
/ tor trial.
Two jury cases were tried last week as
! follows: Arthur b. Pollard V Waldo NJ.
Stevens. Zoe plaintiff In this suit sought
| 10 recover damages cOnss quent upon the
alleged speaking OF certain false or de-
| famatory words Of and concerning tue
| plaintiff by the defendant. The SANDER
complained OF consisted OF the use OF
Horus imputilg charge OF stealing
grapes. The plaintiff introduced wit
ness who testified that IN the fail OF 1884,
In the postoffice ut No. tn Chester, be heard
the defendant make The charge in ques
ton. 1t appeared from the testimony oil
the same witness that In the year 1880 he
had heard the defendant make similar
charge against the p.aintin, accusing him
OF stealing grapes tIom the vine OF the de
fendant's father. In the fall OF 1894 the
plaintiff took some apples from tue or
chard OF one Spaulding aud there had been
some talk that ne had taken them wrong.
fully. On the last occasion that the words
were uttered BY the defendant, he was en-
gagged in discussion with the witness,
Richardson, in relation 10 this matter OF
the apes. Richardson said he did not
believe young Pollard would steal apples
and the defendant replied, II do; a boy
that will steal grapes will steal apples; he
meaning the plaintIff-stole painful OF |
grapes from my fathers vine ana mother |
saw him take Them This matter Ut be- |
ing accused OF stealing grapes preyed up
on the young mans mind ana made him |
quite sick. He was in poor health at the |
time, having had a severe sickness the |
summer preceding
cused Pollard OF stealing grapes; he said |
that In the conversation with Albert l. |
Richardson referred to, he expressed an
opinion that any body who would stea.
apples would steal grapes, and that he did /
not intend to charge any person with
stealing grapes and that he did not call /
any name on that occasion. This was
about the sum OF the case and the jury
found in favor OF the plaintiff and re-
turned q verdict for $500 damages and
costs. Geo. l.. Fletcher aud q. A. Davis
Tor plaintiff; Stickney Il Sargent AND PC.
Southgate for defendant.
Horace Ward against Silas L. sawyer.
This was an action for the ownership OF a
black yeariing beifer The evidence OF the
plaintiff fenced to show that MIR. Ward
raised this heller with some others and
Sometime in the fore part OF the summer
he took 1t attn other cattle TO the defend
ants pasture to be Kept through The sum-
mer. The cattle stayed there until fall.
II en- he went aftt r mis- cattle and found all
except the heller i'll question tue first time
ne went To get them. he went several
lines ana searched for this heifer but die
not nnd ner. He and MIR. Sawyer had
some conversation on the subject and Mir.
sawyer thought ii must be losI. Mr.. Ward
and one OF his sons were going by Saw
yer's place and saw some cattle In the yard
and among them saw Mr.. Waro's back
nelfer. Tney then made an examination
10 assure themselves they were right aud
within. day or two after they stopped and
poke to Mr.. sawyer and went down in
The morning to get their heller but Mr.,
sawyer claimed that II was not theirs but
one OF number that he had purchased
The year before. The evidence OF the plain
IT'D tended to show that this heifer was
raised by his sons and very friendly re.
lations existed between the boys aud the
neifer in question. They were accustomed
to pet the neifer and she would acknowi-
edge this manifestation b. tapping them
and giving other indications that she ap-
precisteu the friendly relations.
On the part OF the defendant it was
claimed that the heller belonged to
him and that when the plaintiff and his
sons came after Their heller they gave
description OF an animal entirely different
from the one they eventually took away;
that they picked out several other heifers
before they settled upon the one taken
aAay. TWAS further claimed by the de-
lenuant that he heller taken by the plain
III was year older than the heif-r be
had put into the pasture. On this ques-
ton OF age several experts were introduced
mo the plaintiff sent for tine heiier and
got her as near Woodstock as ne could
when be sent out q man u meet her and
examine her With a view Of determining
her age. This Witness gave his opinion
hat the heller was three.year-old, winch
was the age OF the plaintiffs HEIR.
Verdict for The plaintiff to retain pos
session OF The heifer ard for IS damages
md costs. This sum being the value OF
lis services and his boys services and the \
lse OF ttams.
John q. Sargent and F. c. Southga,e for
plaintiff; Frank Walker and W. E. John
on Tor defendant.
/