Volume 12 — New Hampshire Reports

Writ of entry, to recover two tracts of land in the lower village in Bath, one of said tracts being ten rods in length, and the other being four square rods of land, situated immediately south of and adjoining the first tract; both constu tuting a narrow strip of land, situated betwixt the main road through Bath village, and the Amonoosuck river.

Trespass, for breaking and euteriog the plaintiff’s close in Holderness.

Assumpsit, upon a promissory note, signed by the defendant, December 5, 1834, for 02500, in six months, payable to the plaintiff, or order, at the Phcenix Bank, Hartford, Connecticut.

Debt, for a legacy given in the last will and testament of William Wood, deceased. This action was founded on the following clause in the will of Wood, to wit: “ I give and bequeath to Sally Payne, wife of Samuel Payne, the sum of twenty dollars, to be paid in three months after my decease.’1 To show a demand of the legacy, the plaintiffs produced a power of attorney, dated March 7, 1838, purporting to be executed by the plaintiffs, and to be attested by William Johnson.

Indictment, for breaking and entering the house of Isaac Paddleford, at Lyman, in the night time, on the 19th day of November, 1840, with intent to steal, and stealing therefrom certain pieces of money. It appeared in evidence that the prisoner went to the house, which is a public house, and asked for, and obtained lodging for the night, and that he took the money from a box in a desk in the bar-room, in the course of the night.

Assumpsit, on a promissory note, in the words following : “ For value received of Galen Hunter, I promise to pay him, or his order, one hundred and sixty-three dollars, on demand and interest. Hartford, January IT, 1838.

Assumpsit. The declaration alleged, that the defendant, on February 28, 1832, in consideration that the plaintiff would agree to rent and lease to the defendant all that part of the plaintiff’s farm in Rumney, lying, &c., (together with one half of the buildings, and divers articles of personal property,) all the farm and property aforesaid to be rented and leased to the defendant for one year from April 1, 1832, and so on, from year to year, as long as the parties to said…

Assumpsit. The declaration was a general count for money paid, laid out, and expended, for the use of the defendant. The defendant pleaded the general issue and statute of limitations. The plaintiff’s writ was sued out on the 3d day of March, 1836, and was served on the 19th day of the same March.

Writ of entry, brought by the demandants, as tenants in common of certain real estate. The tenant moved for a nonsuit, contending that the defect was fatal, and could not be amended.

Audita quERELA. The defendants in this process were summoned to answer to the plaintiff, upon his complaint, “ for that the defendants, at the court of common pleas, hoi den at Haverhill, within and for the county of Grafton, the first Tuesday of May, 1839, impleaded the plaintiff in a plea of the case for trover, and converting to his use forty-seven sides of leather of the defendants, of the value as set forth in their writ, and at the adjourned sitting of said court, on…

Actions of assumpsit, upon accounts annexed to the writ, both of which were referred to the same auditor.

<p>A libel for a divorce, where the parties were not married within this state, must show that the husband had his domicil here at the time, or that by a subsequent removal to this state the libellant obtained a legal domicil here, and resided here at the time the right to a divorce is alleged to harm occurred.</p> <p>Where the libel alleges the desertion of the other party as the ground of divorce, the affidavit of the libellant must be filed, stating particularly the circumstances attending the desertion, that the court may judge how far it. is wdthout sufficient cause, and against the consent of the libellant.</p>

Assumpsit. Plea, the general issue. The declaration consisted of four counts.

Case. Under the 18th rule of court, authorizing the clerk of the court to issue a commission to take depositions, application was made, and a commission issued to Hollis Smith, esquire, of Lenoxville, in Lower Canada. Mr, Smith executed the commission, and the deposition to be used in the case was taken before him.

FoReign attachment. In this case it appeared, by the disclosure of the trustee, that there had been various dealings betwixt the principal and the firm of Johnson & Carleton, of which the trustee was a member, and a balance was found due the firm by the disclosure.

ERROR, to reverse a judgment, rendered in the common pleas, on default, in an action of assumpsit, brought by the defendants against the plaintiff in error, along with Zacheus Fletcher and Horatio W. Hastings. The plaintiff assigned for error, 1.

Foreign attachment. It appeared from the disclosures of Messrs.

Writ of entry, pending on review, in which the plaintiff demands two tracts of land in Portsmouth. The original writ is dated June 18, 1838, and the writ of review, November 6, 1839. In the original action the defendant pleaded the general issue, a trial was bad at September term, 1839, and a verdict returned in favor of the defendant, on which judgment was rendered. The parties both claim under Dorothy Wendell.

Writ of entry, to recover a tract of land in Atkinson. The tenant pleaded the general issue. A verdict was taken for the demandant, for seven-eighths of the demanded premises, subject to the opinion of this court upon the following case. It was agreed, that one Moses Dole was once the owner of the demanded premises, and that on the third day of May, A. D. 1796, he conveyed them to Elizabeth Dole, the wife of Parker Dole.

Complaint, under the act to provide for the maintenance of bastard children. The complaint was not dated, but was sworn to on the 13th day of January, A. D. 1840, as appeared by the certificate of a magistrate; and it set forth that the child was begotten on the 15th day of May last, &c. Upon the trial, the jury found the respondent chargeable, and he moved to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial, for the following reasons : 1.

Assumpsit on a promissory note, made by the defendant, and payable to one Hannah Tappan, on demand, with interest. The note also contained the following clause : “ Settlement to be made at my office, unless the parties happen to be together, and a settlement be made elsewhere.” At the trial, on the general issue, it appeared in evidence that one Eaton took the note, and went to Bradford, where the defendant resides, to demand payment thereof.

<p>The plaintiffs, heirs at law of an estate, gave a chaise and money belonging to the estate, in exchange for another chaise. The defendant, a collector of taxes, seized and sold the chaise as the property of the plaintiffs, for non-payment of a tax assessed against the plaintiffs, which tax was afterwards decided to be void on account of an illegality in the assessment. Held, that trespass would lie in favor of the heirs against the collector for taking the chaise.</p> <p>Whether the single act of disposing of the chaise would make the plaintiffs executors tie non tort. — quere t</p> <p>But if it would. mhh that as such act was not done in the due course of administration. the rightful administrator might maintain trover against the vendee of the chaise which belonged to the estate.</p> <p>Whether in such ease the administrator might have ratified the sale so a.s to vest the property in the chaise in himself, for the benefit of the estate, qttere ?</p> <p>But as lie had not ratified the sale, and as no persons in interest had objected— Held, that the defendant could not now object to the right of the plaintiffs to maintain an action.</p> <p>Held, also, that as the tax was illegal, the possession of the plaintiffs was sufficient to enable them to maintain trespass against the defendant, who had no right to take the property.</p> <p>The chaise was purchased at the collector’s sale, by one of the heirs, and immediately went back into their possession, after a detention of a day or two. A verdict was taken for the plaintiffs for one dollar damages — Held, that the plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation of recovering more than $13.33, and that their costs should be limited to the amount of costs recoverable before a justice.</p>

Foreign attachment. The trustee disclosed that he was indebted to Coleman, the principal debtor, on account, in the sum of $50.69, on the 7th day of July, 1840.

Foreign attachment. The disclosure of Moses Hook, the supposed trustee, set forth, that at the time of the service of the writ upon him he had in his possession certain household furniture, part of which was returned as attached on the writ, and which was left with him, for storage, by Joshua B. Carter, the principal defendant — that he had been informed, and believed, that the property was bequeathed to said Carter’s wife, by the will of her father, Jacob Hook, a copy of…

Debt on a bond, made on the 17th of March, 1817, by Thomas Kimball, as principal, and John Kimball, and David Rundlet, now deceased, as sureties, to Daniel Gookin, esquire, late judge of probate, in the penal sum of $2000. The writ was served on John Kimball only, who confessed a breach of the condition of the bond, and prayed to be heard in chancery ; and the ease was submitted to the court upon a statement of facts.

Assumpsit against the defendant, as executrix of the will of Thomas Safford, upon an account annexed to the writ. 'The action was referred to an auditor, whose report disclosed the following facts, the only question before him being, whether the demand, to recover which the action was brought, was exhibited to the executrix within two years from the date of her appointment.

Assumpsit. The action was commenced on June 22, 1840. The plaintiff, in his first count, declared upon a promise of the defendant Emily, alleged to have been made May 1, 1840, to marry the plaintiff on the 20th day of June, then next, and a refusal of Emily to perform that promise, and alleged an intermarriage of the defendants on June 22, 1840.

Habeas corpus, on the petition of Nathan Murray, setting forth that he is a citizen of Gardiner, in Maine — that on the 28th of May, 1839, being then under twenty years of age, he was enlisted as a private soldier in the army of the United States, by Justin Dimick, a captain, without the consent of either of his parents, who are still living, and that he has ever since been attached to the company under command of said Dimick, now stationed at Fort Constitution, near…

Libel for a divorce. The libellant, Lucy P. Greenlaw, was described as of Exeter, in this county, and the libel set forth that on the 18th day of July, 1838, she was lawfully married to John B. Greenlaw — that said John soon after removed to Boston, Massachusetts, where, in the month of April, he committed a felony, and was thereof convicted in the municipal court in Boston, and has ever since been actually imprisoned for the same.

Foreign attachment, in which the Savings Bank for the county of Strafford was summoned as trustee. The action was commenced on the 24th day of March, 1837. Held: that the trustees had goods and chattels of said company in their possession ; nor is it any reason why execution should not issue against them for said goods thus attached and taken from them. IX.

Assumpsit, upon an account annexed to the writ, in which the plaintiffs had charged the defendant with $>175 in cash, and an acceptance for $170, payable in six months, delivered to the defendant on the 27th of March, 1837, and with interest on said sums, amounting to $18.42; and had credited him with $241.07 for the net proceeds of 1918 pounds of wool, sold by them on his account. There were also counts for money had and received, and money paid.

In Equity-. The bill alleged and charged, that an action in favor of the plaintiff, against the defendant, was pending in the court of common pleas, founded on two promissory notes of the defendant — that the defendant had filed a set-olf, and was attempting to use, in his defence, a receipt signed by the plaintiff, dated long before the first note, for the sum of $>500, to be accounted for, and sought to obtain judgment for the balance — that the receipt was given as…

Whit of ENTRY, to recover a tract of land in Dover. The land in question was formerly owned by Elhanan W. Fen-ner, who on the 25th of January, 1835, mortgaged it to Winthrop Adams and Solomon Jetmess.

Debt qui lam, against the defendants, as selectmen of the town of Madbury, for the years 1S37 and 1838, to recover penalties for alleged neglect of duty on their part, in those years, in not providing the town with a complete set of weights and measures, and a scale beam, similar to those owned by the state of New-Hampshire on the 15th of December, L797, as is required by statute of that date. The writ was dated on the 6th of July, 1839.

Debt, to recover certain penalties alleged to have accrued under the act regulating pounds. The writ was dated June 22, 1839. The declaration contained twenty-six counts. Those only are set forth on which the plaintiff ultimately relied. The second count alleged that the town was destitute of a pound from Sept. 15th, 1828, to Sept. 15th, 1838, whereby an action had accrued to the plaintiff to recover of the town the sum of one hundred pounds.

Assumpsit, on an account annexed to the writ, for one cord of wood, charged at five dollars. Evidence was offered by the plaintiff to sustain the charge as made. The defendant rested his defence on two grounds. 1. That the quantity of wood sold to the defendant was overcharged. 2.

Assumpsit, on a note for $111-34, dated June 7th, 1826, made by the defendant, and drawn payable to the plaintiff’s intestate. The writ was dated on the 22d of July, 1830, Plea, the general issue and statute of limitations. The signature of the note was duly proved. It appeared in evidence that the intestate, Jabez Dow, died on the 9th day of January, 1839, and that he resided at Dover.

Assumpsit, against the town of Middleton, to recover certain expenses incurred by the plaintiff in defending an action brought against him, as collector of taxes for the town, by one Cloutman, in which Cloutman recovered judgment. Plea, the general issue.

Trespass, for taking and carrying away a pair of steers, the property of the plaintiff, on the 7th day of September, 1839.

Writ of entry, to recover a tract of land in Rochester. Plea, the general issue. The writ was dated on the fourth day of January, A. D. 1841. It was admitted that the demanded premises were a part of a close described in an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, brought by one Roberts against the demandant and one James Dame, in the month of July, 1837.

TROver, for a cooking-stove and furniture. The plaintiffs, in support of the action, offered in evidence a receipt, dated March 12, 1838, signed by Leonard Russell, of which the following is a copy — “ Received of Porter & Rolfe one cooking-stove and furniture, at twenty-eight dollars, for which I am to pay $3 per month, or return the same if I do not comply as above.” The plaintiffs then offered Russell as a witness, to whose admission the defendant objected, on the ground…

Assumpsit, upon a promissory note of the defendants, dated August 30, 1833, payable to J. B. Bowman, or order, on demand, with interest, and indorsed to the plaintiff. The writ was dated Dec. 7, 1840. John M. Noyes, one of the defendants, was defaulted. The other defendants, Moses Noyes and Sawyer, pleaded the general issue, and the statute of limitations. There was no evidence to take the case out of the statute, as to Sawyer.

Writ op entry, to recover a tract of land in Sutton. Asa Sargent, one of the defendants, was defaulted. Reuben Sargent, the other defendant, pleaded nul disseizin. The plaintiff claimed the land by virtue of a levy of an execution upon the same, in his favor, against said Asa Sargent. Reuben Sargent set up a title by a conveyance of the same from one Henry White, prior to said levy.

Assumpsit, upon two bills of exchange, for $ 1200 each, dated November 16th, 1837, and payable, one in twelve, and the other in fifteen months, drawn by Gordon Burley, payable to his own order, and accepted by the defendants. It appeared in evidence, that the bills were drawn by Bur-ley, and accepted by the defendants, in order that Burley might get them discounted for their benefit, and remit the money to them as soon as he could, but not later than January, 1838.

Assumpsit, upon a promissory note, signed by the defendants, Jonathan Brown, and Caleb P. Brown, and by one John Brown, deceased, dated September 19th, 1836, on demand, with interest after sixty days, for fj2GQQ. The writ was dated July 29th, 1840. On the trial it appeared that John Brown was principal, and the defendants sureties, and that this was known to the bank.

Assumpsit, to recover money paid and expended for the relief of Nancy Hall, a pauper, alleged to have her settlement in Springfield. The pauper had the settlement of her father, Joseph Hall; and it appeared in evidence that he was an inhabitant of Springfield, from 1807 to 1813, inclusive, and was, during all that time, taxed there for his poll and estate.

In Equity. After the delivery of the opinion, and the entry of the decree in this case, sending an issue to the common pleas for trial, (11 N. H. Rep. 311,) the plaintiff filed a supplemental bill, setting forth that on the writ issued against Heath, and Evans as trustee, October 8, 1S30, the homestead farm of Heath, in Warner, conveyed by him to Evans, as set forth in the original bill, was attached, with other land, as the property of Heath — that Heath had been defaulted…

Case, for damage in flowing a portion of the plaintiffs woodland, from April 7th, 1836, to the date of the writ, May 4th, 1839. Plea, the general issue. The declaration alleged that the defendant, on the first of October, 1834, had erected and built a dato, higher than he was legally entitled to do, and by means of the dam, thus erected, caused the water to flow back upon the plaintiffs land, to his great damage and injury.

Trespass, for taking and converting to the defendant’s use sundry goods, consisting of broadcloths, carpetings, flannels, &c., part of the stock of an English goods store. The property in question was attached on the 10th of April, 1840, by the defendant, as deputy sheriff, upon a writ in favor of Charles Arnold & Co., and another writ in favor of S. P. Smith, against John A. Low. The writs were returnable to this court, September term, 1840.

Case. The first count set forth that D. Tenney &, E. Gould were indebted to the plaintiff on a promissory note— that the plaintiff purchased out a writ on the same, returnable February term, 1837. and delivered it to the defendant, a deputy sheriff, on the 19th of October, 1836, to be served ; and that the defendant, on the same day, was in the store of Tenney & Gould, where were goods of sufficient value to secure the plaintiff’s claim, which the defendant might have…

Case, alleging that the plaintiff’s intestate, and his wife, bn the 17th of November, 1837, commenced an action against the defendant, returnable at the court of common pleas, to be holden at Concord on the third Tuesday of March, 1838, which was duly served, entered, and continued to the September term — that the defendant, on the 27th of June, 183S, agreeably to the provisions of the statute, caused to be left at the usual place of abode of the intestate, a notification in…

Case, on review, by Nehemiah Knox and wife, for slander of the wife. The original action was commenced November 17th, 1837, and was tried at September term, 1838, and a verdict rendered for the plaintiffs, on which judgment was entered. Execution issued October 1, 1838, which was served by an officer, and the amount paid over to said Nehemiah Knox, November 16th, 1838.

Whit of entry, dated February 3, 1837, iu which the plaintiffs count on their own seizin, within twenty years, of one undivided half of a certain lot of land, situated in Milford. Plea, the general issue.

Upon the entry of the appeal it appeared that the instrument was in the ordinary form of a deed, by which the deceased, in consideration of one hundred dollars, paid by his sons, Asa Gage, jr., and Francis Gage, bargained, sold, released, granted and confirmed to them, all his stock of cattle, horses, sheep and hogs, husbandry tools, farming utensils, wearing apparel, and all his personal estate which is not included in household furniture and women’s wearing apparel, which…

TRovee, for a horse. The plaintiff, to show property in himself, gave in evidence a mortgage of the horse, from one John G. Howe, dated December 1st, 1837, and duly recorded, to secure the sum of $25.

Foreign Attachment. The following facts appeared from the disclosure of the trustee. On the 13th day of July, 1840, the defendant and Benjamin Kendrick deposited in the hands of the trustee the sum of fifty dollars each, which he was to hold until the fourth day of March, 1841.

Assumpsit on an account annexed to the writ. One of the charges was for ten and one half cords of wood sold and delivered. At the trial in the court of common pleas, it appeared that on the 28th day of November, 1S3T, the plaintiff had on his land a quantity of seasoned wood, of which the defendant wished to borrow a portion, in order to complete a boat load which he was about to send to market.

Writ of entry, for several tracts of land in Merrimack, in this county. Plea, the general issue. The demanded premises consisted of one piece of land, containing twelve acres, and three other pieces of land adjoining each other. It appeared that on the 5th day of July, 1828, one Samuel Sawyer was seized of the twelve acre piece.

Assumpsit, for sums expended in the support of “ Nancy Towne and her four minor children,” from the 2d of July, 1838, to the 15th of December, 1838. On trial, it appeared that the notice to the town of Dun-barton was, that “ Nancy Towne and her four minor children” were paupers, &c. The claim, as made in the notice, was for boarding said Nancy Towne ten weeks, at $1-62 per week, $16-20.

Assumpsit, upon a promissory note, dated February 2, 1837, for $191-59, payable to Jesse Whitney, or order, in three months, and interest, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff. The writ was dated April 30, 1838. At the trial, it appeared in evidence that on the 7th of January, 1836, Whitney conveyed to the defendant a tract of land in Nashua, with the usual covenants of warranty.

Debt, on two joint and several bonds, given pursuant to the statute for the ease and relief of poor debtors, executed by the defendant, as one of the sureties of Charles Underwood, the debtor, to Ezra Allen, the creditor, for the several sums of $725.26, and $142.98, and dated the 5th day of February, 1838 ; each with the condition that if Underwood, then a prisoner at the suit of Allen, should, within one year from the 5th day of February, 1838, apply to the proper…

Petition for the discontinuance of a road. The petition was referred by the court of common pleas to the road commissioners for this county. Perley Foster, esquire, one of the road commissioners, is an inhabitant of the town of Nashua. At the hearing before the commissioners, the original petitioners for the road objected, that Mr. Foster was disqualified from acting as a commissioner, because he was a citizen of Nashua.

Foreign Attachment. The following facts appeared from the disclosure of the trustee. On the 5th day of July, A. D. 1839, the Clinton Company, by their agent, Imla Wright, assigned to the trustee all the property of the corporation, in trust for the benefit of their creditors. The trustee took possession of the property, and paid therefrom sundry expenses that had been incurred by him, and certain taxes assessed upon the property of the corporation.

Covenant. The case was submitted for the decision of the court upon the following statement of facts, agreed to by the parties. John Balch, the father of the plaintiffs, on the 13th day of May, A. D. 1822, made his last will and testament, which, after his decease, was duly proved and allowed.

Debt upon a bond, dated September 16th, 1837, executed upon the arrest of Johnson, one of the defendants, by virtue of an execution in favor of the plaintiffs.

Trespass, for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close, in Litchfield, November 1, 1838, and on other days, &c. Plea, the general issue. Hugh Nahor, the former husband of Elizabeth Bixby, who is one of the defendants, was the owner of a farm in Litchfield. Upon his death, her dower in said farm was set off, April 12, 1815, by a committee appointed for that purpose.

FoReign Attachment. The action was founded upon a debt of Frederic Lovejoy and John Holt, who were formerly partners — Holt having deceased.

Trespass. The suit was originally founded on the statute for preventing trespasses, and was brought to recover penalties for entering the plaintiff’s close, and cutting trees. The plaintiff obtained leave to amend, and offered a new count in the common form of trespass quare clausum fregit, to the admission of which the defendant objected. The court admitted the amendment, subject to the exception. A verdict was subsequently taken for the plaintiff, by consent.

<p>Assumpsit. Upon the trial, the defendant offered, by way of set-off to the plaintiff ⅛ demand, a joint note to himself, signed by the plaintiff and another, which was disallowed, because the note was not against the plaintiff alone.— Whereupon, after a verdict for the plaintiff, the defendant moved that the action might be continued, to give him an opportunity to prosecute said note to judgment, in order that the judgments or executions thereon might be set off against each other. And he founded this motion on the fact that the plaintiff and the other signer of the note were wholly irresponsible, and that his debt would be lost, unless a set-off should be allowed.</p> <p>The question whether the court of common pleas ought to grant a continuance upon such a state of facts, was transferred for the consideration of this court.</p>

Writ of entry, to recover forty acres of land, situated in Deering, in this county. The title of the demandant was by a deed from Isaac Smith, and it was agreed that the demandant had all the title that Smith had by virtue of a deed from Hunking Pen-hallow, and Benjamin Penhallow, to him, dated on the 2d day of July, A. D. 1825.

Assumpsit, for goods sold and delivered, according to an account annexed to the writ. In order to prove the delivery of the articles charged in the account, the plaintiff offered in evidence his book of accounts, with his suppletory oath. Upon his cross-examination it appeared that the articles were delivered by a third person, whereupon the book was rejected as evidence by the court.

Assumpsit, upon an account annexed to the writ, for ¡⅞17'27, being a balance of accounts. Plea, the general issue. There were also general counts, for goods, wares, &c., and also the common money counts.

Complaint, to recover the possession of a tract of land in Moultonborough, under the act of July 1, 1831, “ providing further remedies for landlofds and tenants.” The respondent, Meribah Wallace, pleaded that she held the land in her own right. The complainant replied an estoppel. The case was submitted to the determination of the court upon a statement of facts. The summons was dated December 21, 1839.

Assompsit, upon an account annexed, and for money had and received. The action was commenced in favor of John L. Perley, against John L. Perley and William Brown, as copartners. At the first term, on motion, the plaintiff had leave to amend by striking out the name of John L. Perley, defendant. Leave was also granted at the same term to file the count for money had and received, and an auditor was appointed.

Assumpsit, for relief furnished by the plaintiff to Thomas Weeks, and Martha Weeks, his wife, paupers, alleged to have their settlement in Epping.

Trover, for a horse. It was agreed by the parties that the plaintiff, who was a deputy sheriff, on the 21st day of August, 1839, attached the horse in controversy, upon a writ in favor of Thomas Burleigh against Charles H. Butters» as the property of Butters, at which time the horse was kept by Asa Gove, at the expense of Butters.

Assumpsit, upon an account annexed to the writ, for boarding and nursing George Pickering, in the months of April and May, 1832. The action was founded upon an alleged agreement by the defendant to pay the plaintiff therefor, if Pickering did not.

Petition for a highway. In this case a committee was appointed by the court of common pleas, who reported that the highway should be laid out in part over land of Benjamin Plumer and George Plumer, who were minors without guardians, and who, as the petitioners apprehended, could receive no legal notice. The court held that the notice given them was-insufficient, and ordered the report to be recommitted, that a guardian might in the mean time be appointed, and notice given.

Assdmpsit. The writ contained two counts, one for money had and received, the other upon a note, dated Boston, July 18, 1837, signed by one Amos Davis, for two thousand dollars, payable to the defendant, or order, in twelve months after date, with interest, and by the defendant indorsed to the plaintiffs. Plea, the general issue.

Writ of Entry, to recover an undivided half of about fifty acres of land in Tamworth. Prior to 1835, Joseph A. Whitten was the owner of one half of the tract described. The plaintiff offered in evidence a deed from Whitten to himself, dated the 25th of April, 1835, purporting to convey one undivided half of the tract, which was recorded June 2d, 1835.

Trespass, for an assault and battery, and false imprisonment. At the trial, under the general issue, the plaintiff offered evidence tending to prove that the defendant imprisoned the plaintiff in a cage, and there detained him from the 1st day of January, 1840, to the 12th day of March, 1840.

Assumpsit, for goods sold and delivered, including, among other things, an anvil, the alleged price of which was $11 ; and a plough, the price of which was averred to be $3.50. Upon the trial, it was proved that in the summer of the year 183S the defendant was the holder of a promissory note against the plaintiff.

Tkespass, brought before a justice of the peace, for taking and carrying away two ploughs and one harrow, the property of the plaintiff. The defendant was the captain of the fifth company of infantry, in the 33d regiment of New-Hampshire militia.

Assumpsit, upon a promissory note, dated September 30th, 1839, payable to the President, Directors and Co. of the Ashuelot Bank, or order, in sixty days and grace, and alleged to be indorsed by the cashier of the bank to the plaintiff. The note in question was signed by John Townsend as principal, and by the defendant as surety, and had upon it the indorsement of the cashier of the bank.

Trespass, for breaking the plaintiff’s close, and cutting certain pine trees ; submitted upon a statement of facts. On the 16th day of September, 1839, Norris Colburn, being in possession of the premises, conveyed the same to Stephen G. Tyler, and on the same day took a mortgage back from Tyler, which mortgage, on the 21st day of November, 1839, was duly assigned to the plaintiffs.

Debt on judgment. The parties agreed to submit the action to the decision of the court on the following statement of facts : At the October term of the court of common pleas for this county, A. D. 1840, judgment was recovered by the plaintiff against the defendant, for the sum of § 197-46, debt and costs, upon which judgment execution was issued, returnable at the April term of said court, A. D. ,1841.

<p>Power is given, in the first instance, to each school district, by vote, to raise money to build or repair school-houses, for the use of the rti-triot, and to locate the same ; hut on their unreasonable neglect or refusal, the jurisdiction devolves on tlie selectmen of the town, who are hound to assess a sufficient taxon the district for this purpose.</p> <p>"Where a tax was raised by the district to build a seiiool house, and a committee was appointed for this purpose ; hut, owing to some difficulty a< to the land for the location of the house, tiie committee did not proceed, and a second meeting was called to take the whole matter into consideration, and the district \vu< unable to elect a committee, but requested the selectmen to proceed and build the house — Ibid, that this was sufficient evidence of neglect and refusal, oil the part of the district, to give the selectmen jurisdiction.</p> <p>The invoice of property recorded in the books of the selectmen is prima facie evidence of a proper invoice, until the contrary is shown.</p> <p>Where suit is brought against individuals, who justify as public officers, they must show themselves officers de jure, and that they were duly qualified, by taking the oath prescribed by law. A record that they were merely sworn, is insufficient.</p>

In Equity. Joel Griswold, one of the defendants, was defaulted. George S. Griswold answered.