The Windham County reformer. (Battleboro, Vt.) 1876-1897, 1896-03-13
COUNTY COURT,
A NiImin gton Farm ana Family Tam
gle-TOSvnshe nd House Case-Sherman
and Waite now ON Trial

Court convened Tuesday, Judg
Lnveland Munson,5 presiding. Upol
the call of the Jury calendar al
but 16 Of the cases were removed frcn
the jury list, and il is probable tha
others will be disposed Of either b,
settlement or continuance. Tho frs
case tried by jury was Walter s.
Grimes VS.. Frank J. Boyd. an action
of assumpsit to recover $3.50 balance
of purchase price Of n farm in vii
mington. The evidence of plaintiff
tended to show that he had been O
laborer and during tho past five years
had accumulated and saved 1918. AZ
which he had on deposit in tho vii
mington Savings bank: that during
the summer of 1871 he commenced tc
keep company with the sister of de-
fendant, who live. with and kept
house for the defendant; that on Oct.
22d he married her and at the solicita-
tion of defendanIpirchased his farm
and moved thereon to reside, paying
for it and personal property S170o, by
assuming mortgage OF $500 and Civ
| ing his note for $500 and turning out
his bank book to app iy on this note.
That owing to the fact that his wife
insisted upon his doing so, he on Nov.
following sold back tn defendant bali
interest in the farm aud personal
property for $3.50; that afterwards
plaintiff was so treated by defendant
and sister that it Became impossible
to live with them and he learned from
conversations which be overheard that
they desired and nioaded to get rid OF
him so that Dec. Z! following he had 4
talk with the defendant aud agreed
to sell him the remaining half interest
on the farm for Sl0J0-Si00 Of which
was to be paid by the defendant
/ assuming one half Of Inc mortgage on
the farm and 5000 cash. That the de
fendant afterwards informed him that
he could only pay 3lG cash and the
balance Jan 1st, as he did not want
tn draw the money cut of the bank aud
lose the interest; that on the same
day they went Ia the Wilmington
Savings Bank when the decd was
drawn by Mr.. Barlow, who also drew
receipt at the dictation OF the de-
fendannt saying it was for balance
due on farm trade. - which was signed
by the plaintiff without reading or
nearing read and upon the supposition
that it was receipt for the $3.50 only.
January lst the plaintiff went to the
bank and found that the defendant
had been there that morning as soon
as the bank opened and drawn out the
money. and later in the day he saw
defendant and demanded of him the
$3.50 balance; which defendant refused
to pay claiming the plaintiffs wife
had homestead right ON the premises
and he was going to pay the money to
her. Plaintiff made another demand
and then brought this suit, which was
immediately followed by divorce
proceeding on the part u his wife, who
had declined to live with him after
the sale of farm.
The defendant claimed that he pur-
chased the farm because the plaintiff
had got sick of his trade and was go
ing to leave anyway; that il was
agreed that he should purchase back
the half interest in the premises for
$1,000, but that plaintiff IS wife who
was present, declined to sign the deed
unless she could have S400 of the pro
ceeds claiming that she would soon be
a mother and was afraid that if her
husband had the money he would go
away and leave her; that the plaintiff
family agreed TO this and they went to
the village and had the papers drawn,
and he paid the plaintiff $40 cash.
sassumed debts Of his to the amount
of $50 and agreed TO pay his wife the
$i00, which ne afterwards paid by
giving her his note for 5000 which in
cluded this debt and ap obligation of
5000 for household furniture which
he purchased OF her, that the plaintiff
never made any claim on him for
money until the bringing of this suit,
and that after the bringing of suit he
met him and asked him why he had
brought such suit and he said he
didn know but some one had ad-
vised him that he could collect of him.
three of his brothers who testified to
of the plaintiff corrobOrat
ing the defendants claim as to the
contract. The plaintiff denied any
such contract. The jury returned r
verdict for the plaintiff to recover
i4S2. II. ii G.. Barber and Waterman,
Martin II Hit for plaintiff, Butter
ield and Hasliins Il Stoddard for de-
ondant.
Charles c. Taft Y. Marshal &. Red I
ield, an action of trover to recover the !
'alue of three horses, mortgaged by |
he defendant to one II. A. Baker. |
The evidence of the plaintiff tended |
o show that in August, 1893. the de-
cndant mortgaged TO Ii. y. Baker of I
'ownshend his staging and livery
BUSINESS as security for the payment /
+ note of $500. which mortgaged in
ludcd the three horses in controversy
hat while Baker held AMI owned the
lortgagc two of the horses were sold
v the defendant, that in January, I
SOL, the plaintiff purchased Of Baker
le mortgage and note paying therefore
POO, which was then its face value:
lat afterwards the defendant scld the
ther horse: that in May, 1899, the
lortgage being unsatistied the plain
III demanded the property covered by
and foreclosed his mortgage upon
nit of the property az he could find.
,alizing only enoul b to pay :, prior
ortgage and leaving him wholly un
Itisfied. whereupon this suit was
-ought
The defendant claimed thai the last i
>rsc sold, which was after the mort
igr came into the possession of the +,
ainiiT. WAS sold with the knoWlcgc / d
ID consent nj the plaintiff: that the
,rse was lame and useless and the
aintiif said 10 him. WHY don't you {
adc him and get uDs YOU can use. ,
ie defendant; also claimed that three {
,rses were not worth as much ss was 1
lmied 10y the plaintiff ard produced
illnesses to support this claim, in ! !
nding veteran Oscar z. Davis. who !,
cred at the jury from behind q
,shy beard ard with q sly "huTsa- !
lde'' twinkle in his eye admitted !,
at he had never kept track OF how !.
inv horses he had traded for except e