Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1896-03-20
wINDHAM COUNTY COURT.

A Verdict OF sII30.70 for sherman In
the "sherman---Vvaite"C ase---James
A. Reed Gets Back a Concord wagon
and One Cent Damages.
s. II. Sherman as. f. NJ W'dite.-This was an
action Of trover for the conversion of large
quantity of lumber The evidence tendedto show
that in December 1890, the defendant bought
two lots containing some 1870 acres, known the
"Stockwell lot" and the "Kn light lot" In Mari.
boro on which there was growing large amount
Of timber. Also that Feb, 12, 1891, he bought an
other lot in Marlboro of about % acres known as
the Luce lott That early 10 January the de-
PENDANT began 70 cut the timber, erected on said
knight lot" portable steam saw mill and cut
out a quantity of lumber, using some 100000 feet
in the erection of the covering for the mill, a
boarding house and barn. That being in need
Of money to carry on the job Of clearing said lots
of the timber manufacturing IL into lumber and
marketing the same, he applied to the plaintiff
for financial assistance That on the 18th of Jan
uary defendant executed to the plaintiff real
estate mortgage of the two first mentioned lots,
also chattel mortgage OF all the lumber, tmoer,
etc, cut and piled, and to be cut and piled on said
lots, to secure the plaintiff for any present or
future indebtedness or liability he might ass me
by reason OF the advancement Of money, notes
given or signed by the plaintiff TO the bank or
elsewhere as defendants surety in obtaining
money to carry on said business. That Feb 2S
1891, the defendant executed a chattel mortgage
sawed on the Luce lot and delivered and pied
on land of Lucy Dooltte on the Brook road in
Brattleboro, to secure note of $2i25 and other
sundry notes and liabilities. That the lumber
consisted Of spruce hemock, oak, Eastwood
maple, birch and beech, and that there cut
and sawed from the three lots in round numbers
100000 feet. That in May, 1891, the plaintiff re-
leased on his said first mortgage oak lumber to
the amount of $1,000, sold by the defendant to
Haywood Brothers of Gardner, Mass, and subse.
quently $500 worth of beech lumber sold by de-
PENDANT to II. l.. Hadock Of Marlboro
The evidence OF the plaintiff tended to show
that the defendant had sold and disposed of all
the residue of said lumber and had never &C
counted for but small portion Of it, That de-
tendant was now owing him on notes executed by
the defendant to him and where plaintiff had
signed notes to raise money for defendant which
the plaintiff had subsequently paid, and all en-
braced within the conditions Of his said two
chattel mortgages, to an amount exceeding
5000, had converted mortgaged lumber TO that
amount.
The evidence on the part of the defendant tend.
ed to show that when he applied to plaintiff to
| assist him ia clearing said lots. manufacturing
| the timber trees into lumber and marketing the
same, at the time said mortgages were given and
at all times until all of said lumber was finally
| disposed of, 1t was understood and agreed that
defendant was to sell said lumber as he did. That
| he frequently consulted with plaintiff and ad-
vsed with him as 20 selling to certain parties.
| That plaintiff always told him to go and dis.
pose Of it, but to be that his customers were
responsible to pay for it. That he did sell TO par
ties who were responsible and that they paid for
| It. That II was also understood and agreed be
| tween them that the cost and expense of manu-.
featuring, selling and marketing the lumber was
first to be paid from the avas Of the sales. That
the mill cut out about 5000 feet per day. That In
| doing the ork he employed p men, - pair OF
oxen and ID pair of horses That the expense to
| defendant was over $50 per day, aside from the
| use Of the teams employed, which was worth al
| least $50 per day additional. That he paid the
expense OF getting the lumber off the lots and tC
the markets. and that all that he ever received
for 1t was applied in the payment OF the liabilities
| the plaintiff had assumed and moneys advanced
| by him. That in fact instead of anything having
| been made out of the job there was a large finan
| cal loss. That all moneys he ever received was
applied Just as il had been understood and agreed
between him and the plaintiff that il should be
unless il was a quantity of lumber that went int
the carriage shop of J. I. Hildreth, although tn,
| plaintiff knew all about that
| Verdict for plaintiff, Sli3G.1 IS damages.
Fits and Read for plaintiff.
Haskins & Stoddard, Waterman Martin & Hit
| for defendant
| James A. Reed rs lionEo Stdrkey This wa
an action of replevrn for a Concord wagon. TIL,
evidence of the plaintiff tended to show that il
| May, 1894, he sued out a writ Of attachment
against his son, J. Dustin Reed, upon which h
| caused to be at ached a stock Of goods in tn,
store OF said j. Dustin Reed also the Concord
| wagon in question and certain other property
| That in July it was agreed that the officer. Sher
| in Gordon, should sell said property upon mesu'
| process. and that the same was sold by him a.
| public auction August 20, 1894 That most OF tbs
| property so attached and sold, including sale
/ wagon, was bought at SAID auction sale by tn'
plaintiff That he permitted said wagon TO go bacl
| into the possession of said J. Dustin Reed, wher
It was attached IN June. 1895, by the defendant
the property of J. Dustin Reed at a suit of Henry
| X. brown against him. That subsequently thu
plaintiff replevied il from the defendant in thi
! suit. That the plaintiff at the September term
| 1894, took jud Sment on his original suit agains
| j. Dustin Reed for S29S6 ~ That the property
sold by the officer at auction or the avasthereof
amounting to $SS4,l5, was applied in part salts
fac ion Of said judgment.
The evidence on the part Of the defendant tend
ed to show that the wagon in question was bough
| May 9, 1894, by J. Dustin Reed of Henry r
Brown at the price OF So so. That he paid 81
In partl payment, leaving $3.50 unpaid. That
was agreed that said wagon was to be and remai
the property of said Brown until fully paid for
but that no written agreement was made an
signed to that effect. That he had no notice o
knowledge that said wagon had been attached a
the property of j. Dustin Reed. until about III
time il was advertised TO be- sold That hndn
the wagon still in the possession of j. Dustin Reed
In June 1895 he caused It to BE- attached to salts
fly the balance of the debt due him its pur
chase The defendant claims that the attach
ment and sale caused TO be made by plaintiff
against J. Dustin Reed in the summer of 1894 wa
not an honest one but collusive, and was nc
valid against subsequent attaching creditors
the plaintiff claimed to the contrary
Verdict for return of property TO plaintiff an
one cent damages.
Fits for the plaintiff.
Waterman, Martin & Hit for defendant.