Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1898-02-07

him in December, '94, for 800 and
brought him noto for 800 which he
took in exchange for nis money in
the grocery store Of one Robinson in
Barton village.
At time he loaned defendant money
and took his note, defendant told him
it was all right, good note signed by
himself for s100, and that he (plaintif)
took it in good faith, relying on the
defendants representations, not hav-
ing his glasses so he could read it. The
defendant paid plaintiff May. 1895, Sal;
on this 800 note. Feb. 3rd, '96, de-
fendant called and paid plaintiff $12,
| balance due on the 500 note, took
the same and went home. Defendant
Brown after reaching home disc over
ed that this 800 note was one written
on old paper in 1864, and also dis
covered that the figure six had been
| changed into nine. 1t was the same
note he had given plaintiff in 1864,
and which he paid in 1865, on the road
between Barton and Glover villages
and did not take up for the reason
that plaintiff did not have the note
with dim.
The plaintiff replies that the note
was in the same condition, old, worn
and rotten when he let him have the
500 thereon as it is now. That he
had kept it carefully separate from his
other papers and finally surrendered
it to the defendant on it's payment.
Now to this stage Of the case neither
party discovered anything wrong
about the note. In short time after
the payment Of this 500 note it was
noised around Barton by the defend
ant that the plainti IF had forged the
800 note by changing the figure six
to nine. Plaintiff Immediately de-
MED the charge of the defendant and
on the contrary charged the defend
ant with making all changes if any
were ever made in this note. The
real issue in the case, which was
warmly contested on both sides, was
as to whether Brown borrowed 800
and gave plaintiff old note as charged
or whether plaintiff changed date of
note. Defendant denied ever bor
rowing this $10O in December, 1894.
The case was very ably argued on
the part of the plaintiff, by Messrs.
Baldwin and Young; and on the part
of the defendant by Miles and Bates.
Chief Justice Ross gave the jury a
very able charge and submitted the
case to the jury at O'Clock Thursday
afternoon. The jury after remaining
out over night came in at 11.35 Friday
forenoon with verdict for plaintiff
to recover 5000 damage and interest
annually from Nov. %, 1894, and his
costs.
The next jury case was Chas. Cole
VS.. Hollis Wheeler. This was an ac-
ton of trespass to recover on e bay
horse and one halter, valued at $46.
Plaintiff Cole rented house of de-
fendant in Holland, May, 1896, occu-
pied it some over year and was to
pay $3.50 month rent. He paid de-
fendant about S18 and owed him a
balance of rent Defendant went to
plaintiffs place in Holland in July,
1897, to get the balance due him on
rent. Plaintiff had four-year- old
horse in the barn which he paid $50
for and a colt in the pasture. Defend
ant wanted to buy the horse or colt.
After looking over the horse in the
barn and getting the price, which was
$40, he went down into the pasture to
see the colt. Defendant claims that
plaintiff sold him the horse while they
were returning from the pasture for
$35. That on their return to the barn
defendant went into the stall, took
the horse out, led him down to the
shed where his horse and road cart
were, got on and came up to the
house. Cole came out Of the house
and said he guessed he would not sell
the horse. Defendant replied that he
had aready traded and started off for
Judge Fletcher's, calling to his friend
Cole to come down and settle. Plain
tiff Cole and bis wife loudly protested
against defendant taking the horse
away as they had not sold it.
Later.-The jury brought in a ver-
dict in favor of the plaintiff .-Erpress
aud Stp1adurd.