The Windham County reformer. (Battleboro, Vt.) 1876-1897, 1896-06-05
COUPLE JUSTICE CASES.
An Interesting Question About Mort
gages-FiXht Over n MIX Bill.

4
CT. Estabrook VS. F. W. Mcclure
! Valley Grain Co. real defendant) was
an action of trover tried before Justice
| S. III. sherman Tuesday to recover the
value of horse and sleigh sold on ex-
ecution against Jesse L.Squires. Es-
tabrook claimed to have mortgage on
the property. The question Of consid
Grafton for it was raised ygnd tried out
quite freely SO that in tho .h3 there was
no contest but that it was bona tide.
But it also appeared that the mort
gage. dated August II, 1893, recorded
November following, was defective in
| form in that the affidavit was not
subscribed. though the magistrate's 8
jura. was appended. The signatures
to the affidavit were not attached TO
! it. until after this suit was brought
and the property attached. The testi
mony was that neither Estabrook For
Sdnires formally made soath, though
the magistrate appended the jurator.
But the record showed Il complete
mortgage. The plaintiff also claimed
to have given actual notice to W. III.
Minor manager of the Grain Go. of the
existence of the mortgage, which Mi
nor denied. In the Sherman Waite Es-
tev case the supreme court held
that such notice made the mortgage,
though defective self, good as be
tween the parties. But aside from this
point, resting on disputed facts, there
is an interesting question in here,
which is likely TO 60 To the supreme
court, whether complete record
amounts to such notice. even while the
instrument itself is defective in not
comply ing With the requirements of.the
law Judgment for plaintiff to recover
$50 and appeal taken Fits for plain
tiff, Waterman. Martin and lIitts for
defendant
Charles +. Downer and Charles Nj
ner fought most Of Nom day afternoon
over 81. G3 milk bill before Justice
Newton and jury consisting of II, B.
Chambrlain,J J. II. Wright. George +.
Selleck, w G. Root and Sewell Morse
There was no dispute that the milk
wps furnished. but defendant claimed
that the contract was that he should
have milk from one COW. and that such
not being suppliedt his baby daughter
was made i'll by milk from a COW fed
on cottonseed. +. g. Phillips, who
originally ron the route and sold it to
Downer May II, 1895, testified that
here was such contract and he told
owner about 1t and also Mr.. Donald
son at the Carroll place from whence
the milk was brought. Donaldson tes
titled that he never heard of such
contract and never kept any milk sep
arate except for one customer of his
own in Centreville. Downer also swore
he never heard of such an arrange !
ment. Donaldson said that February |
% he had a COW from Marlboro, which |
he understood had been fed on cot |
tonseed and which he kept three days,
mixing her milk with.that of Others. |
DIR. B. f. Ketchum who attended the |
child, testified that in his judgment |
the sickness was caused by cottonseed |
milk, though it might have been from
the poison from wall paper, picture |
books. blocks etc. 1t also appeared |
that he was called to the case Fehru
airy 27. or two days before Donaldson's |
purchase of the COW. Verdict for
plaintiff. Fits for Plaintiff, Hit for
defendant.