Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1911-06-09
COUNTY COURT


cases set for trial that in case half of
them should actually be tried this term
of court will last the greater part of the
summer.
The first case to come to trial was a
very peculiar one and was started on
Wednesday morning. This case was
entitled Simon Mcmahon VS. Myron w.
Crow and grew out of horse deal in
which the plaintiff claimed that he sold
to the defendant a horse named
Claire Wilkes on the seventh day of last
March. This horse had a record of
2:18 Ia at six years old, made over the
lake in New York state. There was no
question or doubt that Mr.. Mcmahon
owned the horse when he sold it to
somebody, and there was no question or
doubt that Mr.. Mcmahon has not had
his pay for the horse. The price of the
horse as sold to somebody was 5000.
Mr. Mcmahon claimed on the trial that
he sold the horse to Myron w. Crow
and Mr. Crow claimed that he was act
ing in the transaction simply as the
agent for Charles c. Baker of NAL
burgh, West Virginia. There had been
several negotiations about the sale of
the horse previously, but the plaintiff
claimed that he never had any negotia-
lions with Mr.. Baker. Defendant Crow
claimed that he had sold to Mr.. Baker
mare and that these two horses were
CARED with several others and that
he went down to West Virginia to de-
liver them and did go there; and he
claimed that Mr.. Baker was the man
that bought the horse instead of him
self Mr.. Baker had been for some
time famous horse dealer in that part
of the country and had been in Middle
bury in the fall and early in the spring,
looking up horses. After Mr. Crow
purchased the horse as the plaintiff
claimed, he offered a check for 5000
to Mr.. Mcmahon and Mr.. Mcmahon
went to the Middlebury bank to see if
he could get it cashed; but in the mean
while Mr.. Crow had asked him not to
week or so. Finally before Mr.. Crow
went to West Virginia with the horses
| Mr.. Mcmahon went to the bank to see
if he could get the check cashed. The
check was made out by Charles c.
Baker, payable to Myron w. Crow and
the latter had not Endorsed it. The
Middlebury bank naturally would not
cash the check, but after Mr.. Crow had
got back from West Virginia he did
indorse the check and it was deposited
in the Middlebury bank for collection.
1t came back with the usual notice
in such cases, mo funds" from
the West Virginia bank, so that conse-
quently Mr. Mcmahon has not up to this
time got cent for his horse. The con-
tention of the defence as already eX-
planned was that Charles c. Baker of
West Virginia was the purchaser of
this horse and that the defendant Crow
had nothing to do with the business ex-
cept as an agent for Mr.. Baker. But
Mr.. Grow, after he had returned from
West Virginia, on the 18th of March en-
dorsed the check after which it was
sent for collection and returned back
"no good.
There were not a great many wit
nesses in the case and the whole thing
was finished up in one day, with L. c.
Russell of Middlebury and Frank L.
Fish of Vergennes attorneys for the
plaintiff and James B. Donoway and
Ira H. LaFleur of Middlebury attorneys
for the defence. The case went to
the jury at 8 80 O'Clock after a 20 min
ute charge from Judge Waterman, who
instructed the jurors that there We're
only two points for them to consider.
One was whether Mr. Grow was the
man that bought the horse or not, and
the other was as to whether Mr. Grow S
indorsem ent of this check made him
liable for the amount involved, whether
Baker was good or not, and there was a
special verdict asked for on these points.
1t seems that all the reason why the
jury was out for more than an hour was
on account of figuring up the interest
on this check since the 18th of March.
Their final verdict was for 1904. sc and
costs for Mr.. Mcmahon. There is nc
probability that this case will be APP
pealed.
While this case was under considera-
ton by the jury; the first div orce case
of the term was taken up and completed
during the evening. 1t was entitled
Aurilla G. Hanlon VS. Thomas Hanlon,
who have resided at various times in
Middlebury, New Haven, Leicester and
Goshen, and in which the petitioner
asks for bill of separation on the
grounds of desertion and refusal to
support. The parties were married
1