Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1896-06-05
ACTION AT LAW.
Charles EsterbrOOk and Charles Down
err Victorious In Their suits.


err Victorious In Their Suits.
The case of Charles F. Esterbrook of
Guilford against +. W. Mcclure, the Val
ley Grain company being the real defend
ant, was tried before Justice S. II. Sher-
man Tuesday. This was an action in tro-
yer to recover the value of a horse and
sleigh which was taken and sold by Nc
Clure upon an execution in favor of the
Valley Grain company and against Jesse
L. Squires, and upon which Esterbrook
held a chattel mortgage. The question
was raised as to the consideration of the
mortgage, which was dated August II,
1898, and recorded November 10, 1898. 1t
appeared that the affidavit TO the mortgage
was defective in that the signatures of the
parties we're not appended thereto until re-
Gently, after the attachment had been
made, but that the magistrates jurat was
properly filed and the signatures affixed
originally. 1t further appeared that the
record at the Guilford town clerks office
showed the affidavit complete with the sig
natures appended. 1t appeared that the
parties did not formally make the oath to
the affidavit. The plaintiff also claimed
that the Valley Grain company was given
an actual notice of the mortgage. Judg-
ment was rendered for the plaintiff to re-
cover $50 and costs. An appeal was taken
by the defendant. c. c. Fits appeared
for the plaintiff, Waterman, Martin IL Hit
for the defendant.
The case of Charles E. DOwner against
Charles Miner was tried Monday before
Justice Newton and this jury: H. B.
Chamberlain, J. II. Wright, Geo. Z. Sell
leck, W. F. Root and Sewell Morse. The
suit was one to recover S4.6S due for milk
furnished. There was no disputing the
fact that rs quarts of milk were furnished
Miner between Feb. l and March IA, and
that the price was to be six cents per quart.
The defence claimed that the milk was not
furnished according to contract. Z. G.
Phillips testified for the defence that he
sold the milk route to Downer May 10,
1895, with the good will of the business;
that he bad made contract with Miner to
furnish him with milk from one new mich
COW of the Donaldson herd of Dummers-
ton, and that he informed Downer so at
the time of the sale. Miner testified as to
the contract made with Phillips and stated
that the contract was reaffirmed with
Downer. 1t appears that Miners little
daughter was taken i'll in February and
that he found that the milk which was be-
ing furnished was mixed milk and not that
from one cow. Miner also heard that a
COW that had been fed on cottonseed had
been brought into the herd. DIR. B. f.
Ketchum was called to attend the child
and stated that the child's illness had the
appearance of being caused by milk from
a COW fed on cottonseed, but that it might
be due TO other causes.
Donaldson testified that he had not fed
any cottonseed for five years, that on Feb.
20 a COW from Marlboro was brought into
his herd and remained for three days, duI-
ing which time Downer had part of the
milk and that he heard that the COW had
been fed cottonseed. Downer testified that
he was never party to a contract to fur
nish milk from one COW, but that he did
agree to furnish it from one place and had
fulfilled a contract to that effect. DR..
Ketchum was recalled and from his testi-
mony it was learned that Miners child was
i'll Feb. 27-two days before the cottonseed
fed COW was taken into Donaldson's herd.
The jury, after being out few minutes,
returned verdict for the plaintiff TO re-
cover the full amount of his claim. c. c.
Fits for plaintiff, G. B. Hit for defend
ant.