Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1907-06-27

Iuce Term. 1907.


rha case az Giovanni Rarhattl Vs.
Town Of Grafton resulted IN Vefas' -
plaintiff Of s22s,i0.
Sour Jury cases we're disposed OF ouf,
ine the week ending saturday last anu
h Zach instance verdict was reached IN
.iae az half an hour. There has mol iof
wears been term that had in attehdahee
more .business-liken Jurors.
II q. Giddings vs.. W. ID, Lockwood
Was an action OF troyer 10 recover tno
yalue of a certain stove converted ny WY
defendant To his own use. the pialh''n
loaned the stove to the Chester grange,
which was 10 fix il up and return tns
+ stove when no longer needed, Inc nan
was 10 be heated otherwise 50 the grange
notit,ed t;iddings that he might take ms
stove away. lie sent his man ior ", anu
the defendant said the stove could not ue
taken until an account he had asalhs.
Giddings was liqnidated. Hence tnls
suit. Defendant denied refusing 10 iet
the stove 90, the article being in ma
owned Nv defendant. Verdict Tor the
nlaintitf for sl2.50 and costs. SANFORD
+. Emery for plaintiff; Homer L. sSeei'
for defendant.
Natick Underwear company VS.. heSe'
a Hills. The plaintiff is manulaetnr
ing concern at Springfield, Mass ih'
defendants, +. l.. Reyes and Z. A. nuns
were merchants in partnership at spring
: field, VT, In 1905. They gave 70 ON
Reardon, travelling salesman for plaintin
, an order for ladies' underwear to Tn
amount OF ss2,5o TO be made to order an.
SHIPPED to Springfield. A few weeks a.
forwards, Reyes \ Hills wrote ana eonl
demanded the order, which, however
, had been already shipped to them by IN
plaintiff. The defendants refused 10 &c
cent the goods, and of course declined !
4 nav therefor. Hence the present sun
: The Jury found for the plain
i, tiff in a verdict for sos and costs. +.
spaulding for plaintiff; IL. II. Bianehar
for defendants.
Myron Armstrong VS.. Peter laOors'
This was case from Norwich ana wa
TO recover slS claim To be due irol
the defendant under tn g circumstance
One Brigham owed that amount to u
plaintiff, who brought suit and attaehe
II property OF Brigham. He and LaCor'
|. came to see Armstrong and trisngui'
Il decker was had whereby Brigham WI
/. t. pay LaCorse si5 and in considerable
thereof he undertook to liquidate the de-
from Brigham to Armstrong. This WI
quite satisfactory to the latter, who
once released his attachments. The
5 later. on advice of counsel, LaCor
y refused to pay up, so Armstrong sue
J. The defense was that LaCorse had n
,r received the property that had been
lo tached, as he was to have done, so
a. claimed, and so he refused to settle wi
LaCorse. The jury found for plant
in the sum of SOL. Edward X. Buck
plaintiff; Vim. Batchelder for defendar
~ Joseph $. Bean VS.. Stillman r. Bla
~ chard. This also was a Norwich cas-
n and was an action of replevin for o
ed COW. The plaintiff let the COW to o
at Slim Palmer, who was to pay mont
90 ly rental OF Soc and il at any time
!. wished to keep the animal he was to p
s25. This he did not pay, but kept I
COW lust the same and sold her to the {
fsndant. Blanchard, who claimed to he
paid about half the amount due on
'e count, though he couldn't tell he
ns when or where, because his books W
Z ssto hum.n Palmer testified that he
~ bought the COW and intended at so
- ~ time to pay for her. The jury was Oh
q out few minutes and returned verd
~ ~ for the plaintiff for one cent damages q
iAe his costs. He already had possession
his COW by virtue of the writ of repley
J. G.. Harvey for plaintiff; VIM. Batcl
der for defendant.
cir Next week the states attorney is
The have the floor for awhile to try out SC
the state cases, most of them of minor ci
Au- acter. The one case of Importance, 81
tits VS.. Turner, for shooting DR.. c. w. Ra,
or. Chester last year, it is not expected
be- be tried, as an important witness for
Is defense is out of the state.
,ud