Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1902-06-19
Orange County Cou
June Term, 1902.

to press last week, was an action OF trovet
in which the plaintiff sought damages o.
the defendant for the illegal taking OF
pair of horses from his possession, whlei
be had purchased of the defendant. Statei
ATTORNEY d. S. Conant and r. M. Harvey
appeared for the plaintiff, and VIM. Batch
elder of Woodstock and Darling q Darling
for the defendant. The plaintin contend
ed that the defendants agent took thu
horses against his will and protest, anc
the defendant that it was by the PLAINTIFF
consent that the horses were taken, anC
that the plaintiff wanted them sold anc
applied on the debt. The plaintiff claimed
that he was damaged to greater extent
at the time of the taking OF the horses, the
9th of July, than he would have been al
any other time, because he had 30 tons oil
hay ready to be cut and that 1t was spoiled
in consequence of his being deprived OF
his team. Upon that point, the court
charged the Jury that if the defendant was
guilty, the plaintiff should recover what
would have been the value of the use OF
the horses from the time they were taken
until the 10Th of December, following, that
being the time of the maturity OF the note,
which was given at the time OF the pur-
chase. The court charged also that
il the defendant was guilty-and his guilt
depended upon whether or not the plain
tiff consented to the taking of the horses
the Jury should consider and determine
what was the fair, cash value of the horses
at the time they were taken, and having
determined that, to add to ii the interest
on that sum, by way OF damages, from the
time of the taking to the present time.
The jury rendered a verdict that the de-
PENDANT was guilty in manner and form, as
the plaintiff alleged, and found that the
value of the horses at the time OF the tax
ing, with interest thereon by way Of dam
ages, was s1s4; and that the use OF the
horses, from the time Of the taking until
the 10Th of December, would have been 800.
This verdict will have to be Interpreted or
applied by the court, The plaintiff having
paid nothing for the horses at the time OF
the taking it is, therefore, contended that
he can recover no part OF their value. 1t
remains to be seen how much of this YER
dict will be actually awarded the plaintiff
At the conclusion OF Frappiea VS.. john
son, Tuesday afternoon, the case OF Harvey
w. Bishop vs. Haley +. Richardson q Trs.
was begun, ID. S. Conant and Darling a
Darling appearing for the plaintiff, and
Enright, Buck and Harvey appearing for
the deft. The testimony of the plaintiff,
Harvey W. Bishop, formerly OF Bradford,
and at one time proprietor of Hotel Lowe,
occupied the court until adjournment.
The following morning, counsel informed
the court that the case had been settled,
and the jury were accordingly discharged
from further service in it. The terms OF
the settlement are unknown. The case
was one in which Bishop sued Mrs. Rich
ardson, widow of the late w. A. Richard
son, of Littleton, n. H., for his services in
carrying on the hotel at Windsor, VT, for
rent paid by him, and for money paid for
services and supplies with which to run
the hotel, he claiming that he had been |
hired by her husband, who was act
ing as Mrs. Richardson's agent, some |
weeks before his death TO take charge of |
the hotel, and that he had continued since |
Mr.. Richardson's death under the same |
arrangement for Mrs. Richardson, expect |
ing, as was the agreement, to stay until |
she could get some one else to run it or
could dispose of the place. The de- |
PENDANT claimed that Bishop leased the |
property OF her, and therefore, instead of |
owing him, he owed her. This case finish
ed the civil jury list.
In the case OF Waters vs. Galpin, report
ed in last weeks columns, a motion was
made by defendants counsel, Hale X OAR
ling, to set aside the verdict on the ground |
that the damages awarded (S129) were ex-
cessive and not warranted by any evidence /
in the case. The court denied the motion, i
and said that only in rare instances would 1
the court interfere with the verdict of the |
jury, the general rule being that verdict
is not to be set aside on the ground of ex-
cess unless the damages are extravagantly
would say at once, on the first view, that
they were so that while in this case, the
testimony OF the plaintiff did not show
any physical pain was inflicted, yet every
person has right to absolute immunity
from an assault upon their person by an
other, unless they, themselves, give provo
cation, and i'm that case, the court felt by
no means justified in saying that the dam
ages of s129 were excessive to the extent
that the law requires to set aside verdict.
State v. intoxicating Liquor, Casper
Comolli, claimant, entertained the court
visitors for couple Of hours. This case
was tried by the court, the court ruling
that as matter OF law, the claimant
was not entitled to a trial by jury, to
which ruling the claimant excepted.
ID. $. Conant appeared for the State, and
Attorneys Harvey and White for the
claimant. The State introduced three
witnesses, Geo. Nichols, deputy sheriff
at Williamstown; William +. Worthley,
deputy sheriff at Washington, and Her
bert Farnham, OF Williamstown, who
testified to taking from the house Of one
John Comolli, Gather OF the claimant)
on the nth OF January last, two casks OF
wine, so gallons each, 10 gallons OF whis-
XIV, a 20 gallon Cask Of beer, and about
half a barrel full OF bottled ale,-none {
of the receptacles containing this liquor
however showed any signs OF having ,
eross-examination, it was brought out
that the whisky was returned TO the house
after the hearing in the lower court, but
the reason why was not given. The
rest Of the liquor was retained in the
custody of the officers, and samples Of il !
were brought into court. The claimant
offered no evidence Mr.. Harvey. his
contending that the case should
be dismissed because there was no evil
dence whatever indicating that the liquor
was being kept for an unlawful purpose,
and that the claimant should not be q
called upon to explain. The State asked
the court, in considering the claimants
contention that there was no evidence )
indicating II was kept for an unlawful
purpose, 70 take into account the amount
Of this stuff that was found i'm the pos
session of one man, that being sufficient
evidence from which 10 argue that the
intent IN possessing such a quantity {
could not have been a legitimate one
and that il must have been there for dis
tribution at least, il not for sale The
case is not yet decided but is with the
court
State vs.. Mrs. Eroe Lyford was disposed
OF in short order, there being but two
witnesses, one on each side This was
q case CHARGING fka rsarsnFfHauF a. d