Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1896-03-13
w1NDHAM COUNTY COURT.
The sherman.waIte Case Now on rrIai

The Sherman-Vaite Case Now on Trial.
The March term convened al Newfane
Tuesday, the 10th inst. Present, Hon.
Loveland Munson, presiding judge; Hon.
Lewis 5. Walker, Hon. Edward Titus as
sistant judges.
On the calling of the docket it was
found that the 80 cases originally as
signed for trial by jury had, by reason of
settlements and continuances, fallen TO %,
with fair prospect of several of the others
being taken from The jury list before they
are reached The first case 10 be tried was
that of Walter :. Grimes Is. Frank J.
Boyd. 1t was an action of assumpsit TO
recover $3.50. and interest, balance on a
farm tradS The parties reside in Will
mington. The evidence showed that for
some time prior to Dec. II, 1884, the par
ties were Joint owners of farm, stock Of
cattle and other personal property. That
the plaintiffs wife is sister Of the de-
PENDANT. who is a bachelor. That the
plaintiff bargained his interest in said real
and personal property to the defendant at
the agreed price Of $1,000. That Dec. II,
1894, plaintiff and wife executed and de-
livered to defendant deed of the real es
tate and delivered the personal property TO
defendant, and that on the same day de-
PENDANT paid plaintiff towards the pur-
chase price $50 in cash, and assumed the
payment of plaintiffs mortgage Of $500
to the Wilmington savings bank. The
evidence of the plaintiff tended to show
that the defendant agreed to pay the bal
ance of $3.50 Jan. /, 1895, but that he had
never done so.
The evidence on the part of the defend
ant tended to show that the plaintiff and
his wife did not get along well together,
and that the plaintiff proposed to leave the
place and his wife, and so sold as before
agreed TO the defendant. That plaintiff 5
wife refused to sign the deed of convey
ance unless she should be paid the sum of
/ 500, as part of the agreed consideration,
as she did not propose to be left by him
without anything. That plaintiff agreed
that defendant might pay his wife the 800,
and that the remaining $50 was to be paid
| in settling several bills the plaintiff was
| owing, amounting to that sum or a little
over. That he had paid and had plaintiff
| discharged from his liability on these bills,
| and had also paid plaintiffs wife the $500,
which was embraced in a note of 5000,
which he gave her for the $500, and GER
| tain property he purchased OF her. That
at the time of the execution and delivery
of the deed and the payment of the $50
cash, the plaintiff executed and delivered
to defendant a receipt acknowledging said
sum to be in full for balance due on the
| farm trade.
The plaintiff denied that his wife re-
| fused to sign the deed unless she was paid
| said $500. He admitted the execution of
| the receipt, but testified it was not read to
| him, nor did he read it, and did not know
/ II. - ,aI he ala ffTll 60
| balance on farm trade Verdict for plain
tiff S4S2. Is damages.
Barber, Waterman, Martin Il Hit for
plaintiff.
Butterfeld, Haskins & Stoddard for de,
PENDANT.
Charles c. Taft rs. Marshall c. Red
| feld.-This was an action of trover TO re.
cover the value of one gray stallion, one
| chestnut horse and one cream-colored colt
The evidence on the part of the plaintiff
tended to show that August 10, 1898, the
defendant mortaged the property sued for
together with a quantity of other personal
property, to one II. A. Baker TO secure a
note of 1868. That Jan. 9, 1894, said
Baker duly assigned said note and mort
gage to the plaintiff. That the property
when so mortgaged was subject to two
prior mortgages, one to Julian G. Taft anC
the other to Warner G. Townshend. Tha
the defendant disposed of the gray stallion
and cream colored colt in August or Sep
TENDER, 1898, and the chestnut horse II
June, 1894, and had converted the pro
ceeds thereof to his own use. That Ma!
2, 1895, but $16S having been paid on sale
note of 1868, the plaintiff began proceed
ings in foreclosure upon such of the mort
gagged property as he could find. Tha
upon selling the same it did not brinl
enough 10 pay the Townshend mortgag
and the full costs of foreclosure, so tina
plaintiff did not realize anything on hi
said mortgage and note. That the horse
which the defendant converted were wort
from $3.50 to $270.
The evidence on the part of the defend
ant tended to show that the fair marke
value of said three horses at the time o
their conversion was from $95 to $3.50 only
Several questions were raised as TO tn
right of the plaintiff to recover anything
but under the ruling of the court the cas-
resolved itself into question of damages
simply. Verdict for plaintiff $1,000 dan
ages.
Waterman, Martin & Hit for plaintiff.
Robb and Haskins q Stoddard for d.
PENDANT.
S. II. Sherman cS. f. NJ. Wdite.-Thl
was an action of trover for a quantity
lumber. A jury had been empannelle(
: and large number of paper exhibits ha
been identified for use hereafter, when Ii
court adjourned for the day Thursday.