Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1901-01-17
Windsor County Court.

TsrheII' had had time or II the court could
Rave assembled after the session OF the
supreme court, ne would have trieo
number OF state cases, but Judge start
other engagements prevented TINS anu ~
all the state cases were ordered 70 DC set
Tor trial at the commencement OF the June
term before any civil causes are tried
The following matters were nearo py
the COURT DL The
suit was brought to recover ~, tne price
~ a cow, Kidder kept COWS. Durham
ADM have enough cows into one to
3 nronerlv supply his milk customers, SO
Ppne dav last August he went to B1dder's
\ and saw there a fine Holstein cow that
CHARLES allowed might be taken for ~ or
! left, Durham took the COW nome Inurs-
day night. The next Saturday evening
the man who brought her not to leave the
COW. but the man threw the halter over
the cows neck and left her TO her iate-
and Kidder. Charles had an idea that a
trades a trade and made demand Tor MS
pay, which, being refused, suit was mao
before justice. NOW tne 3eIe sraats
she was hard to milk; she was kicker;
sbe didn't give much milk anyway and
What she did give was "gargetty." That
was why Durham didn't want her ana
sent her back. The cows character as a
kicker was sworn TO by John Lahock.
4 he conldn't say, aLet her kick; this ROCK
shsII Avn etc. She kicked John in the
small Of the back and landed him quite
4 distance. Those who had known her from
her heiferhood gave her good character
4 as quiet, non kicking creature, ana as
for the milk being gargetty, several VIII
nesses were produced who saw tine MIX
about the same time and 1t was " NJ
Among Others, the plaintiff called George
Tupper. He saw the COW MIXED the
evening she was brought back and had
the milk. Now George says gargetty
milk will spoil the best milk punch that
was ever mixed and this mess OF mix was
all right. The court gave Judgment lo5
3 the defendant to recover his costs ana
Kidder had the cow. John j. Wilson for
plaintiff; Southgate for defendant
! John s. Rand, Admir-, v. Harper Hazen
and j. +, Johnson was an action 10 re-
cover something over 5000 for feed, ETC.,
supplied to johnson who had farm on
4 shares leased to him by fiazen. The feed
was nsed for the stock on this farm. The
Defendant johnson made no defence, but
II was sought TO collect the sum due from
. Defendant Hazen. The feed was all
- ordered by Johnson, but was charged on
the books to both defendants. Hazen
never authorized any such charging ana
did not know 1t was charged to Johnson
and himself jointly until the whole
q amount claimed had been incurred
Plaintiff claimed to hold Hazen on the
account by virtue OF lease between him
and johnson. The court could not so
construe the lease. Plaintiff further
claimed that Hazen's subsequent CONQUER
was such as to make him liable. He had
taken mortgage from johnson OF all his
personal property. The court failed to
And liability on the part OF Hazen and
rendered Judgment for him to recover bis
. costs. Judgment against Defendant
Johnson for the sum OF II ,015. u and costs
pingree & Pingree and j. G. Enright for
the plaintiff; VIM. Batchelder and VIM
Z. johnson for defendant.
In the matter OF the trust under the VIII
OF Prosper Merrill, late OF woodstock
deceased. This was an appeal from an
- order OF the probate court, Hartford dis
trict. The testator in his Will left be-
quests to three great grandchildren IN
Massachusetts and appointed one A. j
Fargo as trustee. The probate court de-
= clined to endorse the appointment solely
\ upon the ground that Mr.. Fargo lived oul
OF this state. Henry q. johnson OF Wood.
!, stock was first appointed trustee anc
'" served several years. He resigned and thu
court appointed Fred W. Wilder o.
Woodstock. The beneficisries under th'
will had no objection to Mr.. Wilder, bu
they want Fargo. The probate court will
not appoint Fargo for the reason stated
above. Gilbert A. Davis appeared for thu
! appellants; VIM. Il. johnson for Trustee
Is Wilder.
: The Baker Lead Co. OF Worcester
- Mass, vs. Ernest 8. Peacock was an actor
Z of tort to recover about hundred dollar
\ for goods sold and delivered to the de
= PENDANT under the name OF the Whit
> River Hardware company in 1893. TIT
8 goods were ordered In September anC
Z October OF that year. 1t was claimed by
= the plaintiff that the defendant made GER
, tain representations as to bis financia
= standing, on the strength of which th'
= orders were filled and credit given tina
z In December OF that year defendant mad
3 an assignment and was insolvent. paying
= his creditors twenty-five cents on tn
= dollar. 1t was claimed by plaintiff tina
< Peacock knowingly misrepresented as Il
his financial condition and practiced
= fraud in so doing. This was denied b.
defendant, who insisted that whateve
< statement was made by him was made II
4 good faith and believed by him at tn
8 time to be true. The court ordered judg
ment for the defendant and exception
3 were taken. Pingree & Pingree and q. A
\ Davis for the plaintiff; VIM. Il. johnson
: and VIM. Batchelder for defendant.
Divorce causes were tried as follows:-
Ella l.. Stone VS.. Charles II. Stone. Tn
3 parties are OF Springfield and we're mar
D ried at Perkinsville in July, 1895. Tn
= defendant neglected and refused to pro
x vide for his wife, and a bill was grante
q on that ground. Custody OF minor chill
3 given to the petitioner, for whom II. II
D Blanchard appeared.
Z +. r. Larrabee vs. Persis Larrabee. Th
x parties lived at Woodstock where pc
q titioner nov resides. They were marie
3 In 1898 at Lancaster. n. II. In year 0
= SO later the wife deserted her husband
Bill granted for desertion. F. Z. South
- gate for petitioner.
Norris ID. Wilder VS.. Martha b. Wilde
IN bill was sought on the ground OF desei
ton. The parties we're married in 1Ss
and lived at Plymouth. About a yes
Ter later Mrs. Wilder went away to work fC
M some months, and several times after
he wards did the like until 1895. When 81
nd returned from such an absence thel
nd seemed at that time to be a GOODNESS b'
tween the parties. The husband elaine
DIX these absences were not with his approv
and wholly on her own motion. The wi
. claimed such absences were with b.
husbands consent and the first time @
,s,a his suggestion.