Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1896-06-13
Windsor County Court.
May Term 1896.

The case of Amsden VS. Atwood con
tinued on trial and did not reach the jury
until the evening of the 9th inst. The ac-
ton was brought to recover for rent of a
part of certain buildings in Windsor owned
by plaintiff and for saving logs into chair
stock and other work done. There was a
serious cont. ntion that nothing was due
plaintiff for rent, but as the case resulted
the whole claim of plaintiff was allowed
with interest and amounted to $2S6.13
The defendant filed a declaration in off set
claiming damages for the breach OF plain
tiff's contract to saw logs of plaintiff into
chair stock. This contract had been in
cluded in written lease which expired
November /, 1891, and which contained a
clause that it might be extended for term
not exceeding five years by giving notice
in writing more than three months prior to
that date at the option of the defendant.
Defendant refused to exercise his option
and did not give notice in writing of his
desire to extend the lease, but defendant
continued in possession and use of the
premises. and the plaintiff continued to
saw his logs up to December 20, 1892, and
defendant paid rent to October /, 1892.
The claim in offset turned on the legal
effect of these facts. The defendant
claimed that the legal effect was to carry
forward the written lease with its stipula-
ton to saw logs, and that he had become
tenant from year to year. The plaintiff
claimed that in October, 1892, and before
the first year had expired he gave notice
to defendant that if he continued to en-
ploy a certain man who had repeatedly in
suited him he could not remain any longer
as tenant. After this notice no rent was
accepted and the affair eliminated when
plaintiff found the offensive employe at
work on the premises and insulting the
plaintiff. Thereupon the plaintiff refused
to saw logs and the defendant vacated, but
before defendant did anything towards va
eating the plaintiff gave defendant notice
that he would resume saving. The court
ruled the law about as claimed by the de-
fendant and refused to instruct the jury as
claimed by the plaintiff and especially re-
fused to instruct the jury as to the effect of
plaintiffs notice in October, 1892, and be-
fore defendant had remained full year
under the extended lease The court in
structed the jury that if defendant was en-
titled to any damages to find especially
upon the subject of damages so that the
case could 60 to the supreme court and
then the law could be applied to the facts
and the proper Judgment entered. The
jury found for the plaintiff to recover
S2S6.1 13 and then answered three ques-
tions:
1. What was the value of the unexpired
portion of defendants lease to November
l, 1898 A. S200.S7.
2. What damage by depreciation OF
machinery A. Nothing.
3. What damage on logsP A. $125.
The case now goes to supreme court fo1
revision OF the numerous and interesting
questions of law that have been raised
The jury were out for long time and on
the question of whether defendant should
be allowed any damages voted ) to 4.
The defendants testimony tended to
show his damages were over $1,000 includ-
ing the special damage on machinery $500
| The small sum allowed him was the result
of compromise in the jury room. Gilbert
A. Davis and w. b. G. Stickney for plain.
tiff; j. G.. Enright and j. j. Wilson for
defendant.
The court took recess from Friday
evening until Monday afternoon ofthe Sth
| l. Hc hCAt SaoC 'dhSii up was tiidt vi al
thur B. Pollard OF North Chester agains
| Waldo S. Stevens of the same place. Th,
testimony of the plaintiff tends to show thai
from some time in 1890 to July 1895 the
defendant on different occasions charged
plaintiff with having stolen grapes and ap
pies. Plaintiff is now only 20 years of ag,
and is from one of the most respectabl,
families in Chester. He had been verl
sick with pneumonia the spring of 1894
and before his full recovery the defendan
renewed the REGULATION of this story abou
him, and coming as it did under those cir
cumstanees it had very depressing effec
upon him and injured his good name an,
lame. Fifteen witnesses have testified 70
the plaintiff. The defence is denial o
the speaking Of the words in the sense al
!, legged. The jury after only short consul
tation returned verdict that defendan
was guilty and that the plaintiff recover G
defendant S93 % damages and his costs
This is a vindication of plaintiffs goo
name and fame from the charges made b
The defendant