Volume 13 — New Hampshire Reports

Writ op Entry, to recover possession of a tract of land in Richmond. The action was founded upon a mortgage made by John Day to Othniel Day, the plaintiff’s intestate. Plea, the general issue.

Attachment for a contempt. Upon a bill in equity, filed against the respondent, alleging a conveyance to him of a certain farm, and a bond to re-convey on the payment of a sum of money, and praying a specific performance, a decree was entered, July term, 1841, requiring him to execute a deed re-conveying the premises. See 11 N. H. Rep. 451, Buffum vs. Buffum.

M. Hall. • It appeared from the report of an auditor, that there were several claims against said Hall, belonging to the estate, amounting to more than $600, and that the administratrix, acting in good faith, and by the advice and assistance of disinterested, judicious, and discreet men, made an adjustment with Hall, of all claims, and received of him $300, in full discharge of the demands, for which she had accounted in a previous account.

<p>Debt upon a bond. The pleadings resulted in an issue to the jury, which was tried, and a verdict rendered for the defendant. After the verdict, the plaintiff moved for leave to become nonsuit, on the ground that the testimony of one of the witnesses, examined on the part of the defence, was entirely unexpected.</p> <p>The plaintiff may become nonsuit at his pleasure at any time before the cause is opened to the jury. After that, either party may insist on a verdict, unless the court in their discretion allow a nonsuit, which they may do upon good cause shown, when it cannot be claimed as a right. 12 Mass. R. 47, Haskell vs. Whitney ; 16 Mass. R. 317, Locke vs. Wood; 5 Bac. Abr., Nonsuit, page 143, note. Neither can the plaintiff be nonsuit against his consent. 6 Pick. 117, Mitchell vs. N. E. M. I. Co. The case in 16 Mass. 317, is strongly in point, but not so strong as the case at bar. There the motion was made before the verdict was rendered. Here it was made several days after the verdict was recorded and judgment satisfied.</p>

<p>Debt. The defendant, Little, was arrested upon an execution, and gave a bond, with sureties, conditioned that Little should surrender himself within the time specified in the statute, or take the poor debtor’s oath, if the execution should not be otherwise discharged.</p> <p>It appeared in evidence that in the summer of 1838, the plaintiff, having certain negotiable promissory notes signed by the 'defendant, Little, delivered them, without indorsing, to one John Silver, to indemnify him for having signed for the plaintiff a note to one Perry, for a sum exceeding the amount of the notes delivered, which note to Perry was afterwards paid by Silver.</p> <p>Soon after Silver received the notes he commenced a suit thereon, and the following instructions to the officer were placed on the back of the writ by the plaintiff’s attorney:</p> <p>“ Mr. Officer : attach sufficient property to respond debt and costs, if possible; if not, hold to bail, by order of plaintiff ; and also inform the defendant that the within described note is the property of John Silver.”</p> <p>The officer who served the writ testified that the plaintiff’s attorney inclosed it in a line to him, and wrote, requesting him to say to the defendants in the suit that John Silver, of Newport, was the plaintiff in the action, although the suit was brought in the name of James Cameron. The officer farther testified, that at the time of serving the writ he told the defendant, Little, that the interest in the suit was wholly in John Silver, and that James Cameron had nothing to do with it.</p> <p>Judgment was recovered on the notes, and the defendant, Little, was arrested, and gave the bond now in suit. On the 7th day of December, 1839, the poor debtor’s oath was administered to him by two justices of the peace for the county of Hillsborough.</p> <p>Notice of the application to take the oath was duly served upon Cameron, but no notice'was given to Silver.</p> <p>It was agreed that judgment should be rendered for the plaintiff for the sum of $85.49, or for the defendant, as the court should order.</p>

Case, against the defendants, for keeping open a road around a turnpike gate of the plaintiffs’, so as to deprive the plaintiffs of toll. The present suit is on review. The original writ was dated August 23d, 1833 ; and judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs at the October term of the court, 1834, for $889 damages. The writ of review by the defendant was seasonably commenced, and entered April term, 1836.

Assumpsit, on a promissory note, dated on the 8th day of June, 1840, made by the defendant and Sylvester N. Tracy, jointly and severally, and payable to the plaintiff in the month of January, 1841. Plea, the general issue.

Writ of entry. The tenants disclaimed all the demanded premises except twenty-five and one half acres, as to which they pleaded nul disseizin. The demandant offered in evidence a deed executed by one Freeland Whitcomb, dated on the 10th day of February, 1838, and conveying the premises to the demandant in fee and in mortgage. It was acknowledged before a magistrate, and at that time was attested by one witness only.

Assumpsit, upon a promissory note, dated September 12, 1835, payable to the plaintiff, or order, in two years from date, with interest.

Trover, for two horses; submitted to the court upon a statement of facts. On the ] 6th of October, 1838, the plaintiff, residing in Littleton, sold the horses in controversy to one Elias M. Hall, then, and until the commencement of this suit, residing in Bartlett, for $100, to secure the payment of which, Hall mortgaged to him the same horses, and. the mortgage was recorded in the office of the town-clerk of Littleton.

Trover, for seven tons of hay, alleged to have been taken and converted by the defendant on the 5th of October, 1839. The defendant was a deputy sheriff, and justified the taking of the hay, upon an execution recovered May term, 1839, in favor of Jonathan Bliss against one Joseph Jones, upon a promissory note dated December 13th, 1836. The only question in controversy was respecting the ownership of the property.

Assumpsit. There were originally six counts in the declaration. The first was on a note of February 12th, 1830, for $1217.04, payable to Wareham Morse, the plaintiff’s intestate, or order, on demand and interest. The second, for f;5000, money had and received.

In Equity. The bill stated that on the 18th January, 1834, Ebenezer Eaton obtained from the U. S. government a certificate entitling him to a pension of $8.00 per month, and that in March, 1834, ho presented it to Hamlin Rand, and desired him to draw the necessary papers for procuring the first instalment, then due ; which Rand did, and advanced to him $13, the amount of the instalment, wanting sixty-seven cents, retained by him for his charges.

Error, brought to reverse a judgment rendered in the county of Grafton, on the fourth Tuesday of May, 1824, in favor of Cobleigh against the present plaintiff. The error assigned was, that there was no personal service on the original defendant.

Case, to recover for injury done by the defendant’s keeping up and maintaining a dam from the 1st of April, 1830, to the date of the plaintiff’s writ, on the 8th of October, 1839, so as to throw back water upon the plaintiff’s land, causing damage to his crops, soil and woodland, whereby he was deprived of their use and occupation. The defendant plead the general issue and the statute of limitations.

Writ of Entry, to recover a tract of land in Landalf, in this county. At the trial upon the general issue, the demandants proved that they had caused an execution in their favor against Levi Brooks, one of the tenants, to he extended upon the premises, as his property.

Assumpsit, upon a bill of exchange drawn by Moses P. Little upon Ellis, Little and Company, payable to the order of the drawer, and accepted by the drawees. No service was made upon any of the defendants excepting Moore, and at the trial of the case upon the general issue, the only question was whether Moore were a member of the firm of Ellis, Little and Company.

Assumpsit. This case comes before us upon the following agreed statement of facts : The action was commenced before a justice of the peace, and judgment was there rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and the action carried to the court of common pleas for this county, by appeal from that judgment. The declaration contained two counts. The first was upon an account annexed to the writ. ■ That count was abandoned at the trial before the justice.

Trover, for a three year old colt. It appeared that the colt was owned by the defendant, and that, on the 29th of October, 1838, a sale of said colt was made by the defendant to one William H. Chandler, in consideration of two notes received of said Chandler, one for $30 in cash, and the other for $10 in shoe making, both payable in January, then next; — that, on the same day, said colt was conveyed by said Chandler to the plaintiff, in payment in part of a precedent debt…

Assumpsit, for money had and received. The plaintiff gave in evidence a note, dated January 19th, 1833, made by the defendant for $ 100, and payable to Peter Parker, or order, at Bradford, in two years from date, with interest annually, and by Parker indorsed to the plaintiff. The note was made and payable at Bradford, Yermont, and the plaintiff, defendant, and Parker, all resided in Vermont. The writ was dated February 20th, 1839.

Foreign Attachment. The only question made was, whether the trustee was liable to the plaintiff in costs. The trustee disclosed as follows : “ Some time in 1837, the principal defendant, Glazier, employed me to get for him the insurance money on his buildings, which were burned. I obtained the money, to the amount of about $600.

Assumpsit, commenced before a justice of the peace, and tried, on appeal, in the common pleas. The declaration alleged that the plaintiffs had brought an action against Moses Dunklee and George Aldrich, and that on the 15th day of February, 1839, the plaintiffs and Aid-rich submitted the subject matter of the suit to arbitrators, who awarded that Aldrich should pay the plaintiffs the sum of $5.17, and cost of said action, amounting to $3.59.

' Complaint, originally commenced before a magistrate, to recover possession of a tract of land in Bristol, under the act of July 1, 1831, providing further remedies for landlords and tenants.

Debt on bond, dated on the 13th day of December, 1832. The defendant craved oyer of the condition, which was to pay all damages that the plaintiffs might sustain in consequence of the dam built across the Ammonoosuck river by the defendant, and to repair all damages done by the water to the farm bought by the plaintiffs of Guy Young, caused by the erection of the dam, and to pay the plaintiffs or their assigns all damages that said farm .might thereafter sustain in…

Covenant, founded upon an agreement under seal, dated September 27, 1839, alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff of the one part, and the defendants, Peter Paddle-ford and Cyrus Eastman, of the other part; by the said Eastman, under the signature of Eastman, Mattocks &.

Assumpsit. A plea in abatement was filed with the clerk;. after the close of the sitting of court on the fourth day of the term, and after a general entry of the defendant’s name had been made on the docket, without notice of such plea. The plaintiff objected that the defendant was precluded from filing a plea in abatement after the entry of a general appearance ; and also that the plea was not filed seasonably, agreeably to the rules of court.

Assumpsit. The declaration contained two counts. The first was on an account annexed for three hundred and eighty-eight pounds of sheep. The second was for money had and received.

Assumpsit, on account annexed to the writ, and for use and occupation. Held: that where there is a submission of all de- ' mands which either party had against the other, the award is a conclusive bar to an action for any demand subsisting at the time of the submission and award. 12 Johns. 311, Wheeler vs. Van Houten.

Assumpsit. The action was commenced by a writ of attachment. After enroling the writ, declaration, and officer’s return, the defendant pleaded in abatement of the writ that the officer who served and returned the writ, was not, before the service and return, sworn to the faithful discharge of the duties of his office.

Trover, for forty-seven sides of sole leather. It appeared that on the first day of October, 1836, one Ebenezer C. Hadlock agreed with the plaintiffs, that he would tan for them two tons of dry hides into sole leather, for one half of what the hides would bring more than the plaintiffs- paid for them in Boston.

Trespass, for cutting in pieces, and carrying away, a pine tree of the plaintiff. The writ was dated the 25th of December, 1840. The plaintiff offered Darius Nichols as a witness ; to whom the defendant objected, that he was a joint owner with the plaintiff of certain timber of which the plaintiff alleged this tree to be a part, and therefore incompetent.

W rit ok Entry, in which the plaintiif demanded “ a certain piece of land, with its appurtenances, situate in Bath, and known as lot number twenty, in the third range of hundred acres lots east of the river Amonoosuck, bounded on the southwest by that lot known as the White & Porter lot, being also the same on which said 'tenant resides, and containing about one hundred acres,” &c. The plaintiff counted upon his own seizin, and a disseizin by the tenant.

Assumpsit, upon several promissory notes and orders signed “ Colby & Kenniston.” At the trial upon the general issue, the only question was whether Kenniston were in partnership with Colby at the dates of the instruments declared on. It appeared in evidence, that Colby lived at Boston, and Kenniston at Campion, in this state, and that the signatures to the notes and orders were in the hand writing of Colby.

Trespass, for that the defendant, on the first day of November, 1834, and on divers days between that day and the date of the writ, broke and entered the plaintiff’s close in Bath, “being all that part of lot numbered three, in the first range of lots on the west side of Amonoosuck river, which lies southerly of a line extending or running across .said lot, from a pine root on the westerly line of said lot, (in which root stands a white birch stake) a little southerly of the…

Libel, for a divorce, describing the libellant as of Grafton, in this county, and alleging that the parties were married at Seabrook, in the county of Rockingham, on the 27th of May, 1835, and that on the 22d day of March, 1839, the respondent unnecessarily, without sufficient cause, and against the consent of the said libellant, left him, and has from that time to the present refused, and still does refuse, to live or cohabit with him.

Writ or entry, to recover a tract of land in Campion, in which the plaintiff counted on his seizin in fee and in mortgage. The writ was sued out at the November term of the common pleas, 1841. The defendant pleaded nul disseizin. The plaintiff offered in evidence a mortgage deed from the defendant of the demanded premises, dated December 12th, 1838.

Trover for four horses and other property, valued at $530. The writ was dated May 6, 1839. At the first term, the defendants pleaded the general issue, and the action was continued.

Assumpsit on a promissory note, dated April 20, 1836, for $300, payable to Thomas H. Kimball, or order, by the first of January, then next, and indorsed by Kimball to the plaintiff. Plea, the general issue. The note in suit was signed by Benjamin Fay and the defendant. Fay was defaulted. It was admitted that Kim-ball, the payee of the note, was the party in interest in maintaining this suit.

In error. The original action was a writ of entry, to recover a tract of land in Lancaster. From a bill of exceptions, filed in the case, and which came up as part of the record, it appeared that the title set up on the part of the plaintiff Avas under a mortgage executed by one Samuel Smith to Lovejoy, the original plaintiff, to secure the payment of a note made by Smith, and payable to Lovejoy or order.

Trespass quare clausum. The locus in quo described in the declaration was lot No. 16, in the 14th range in the township of Errol. The defendant plead the general issue. The plaintiff, to support the issue on his part, and to show title to the premises, offered, 1. A deed, Thomas Carlisle to him, dated July 26, 1827, acknowledged the 27th and recorded the 28th of July; 1827, conveying, among other tracts, lot No. 16 in the 14th range in Errol. 2.

Trespass quare clausum, for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close, and digging a deep pit and trench, by means of -which a spring of water, which the plaintiff was accustomed to use for himself and cattle, was destroyed and the plaintiff’s land broken up and injured.

Trespass, for taking two French horses, property of the plaintiff, Oliver Blake, on the 10th of January, 1839, valued at $60 each. Held: or claimed by declarations of his to hold and own the farm, property and stock thereon, on which said James lived, and on which the horses were kept until the attachment in the present suit, and that the claim was fraudulent, and a mere cover of property.

Debt, upon a sealed contract, containing a receipt for making incorruptible teeth, the latter part of which was in the following words: “ 1 hereby acknowledge that for these directions the said Brewster has paid in hand to me the value of twenty dollars this day. Now if this paper does not contain a true and proper method for making approved incorruptible teeth, I will, to said Brewster, on demand, pay one hundred dollars truly and faithfully.

Replevin, for certain articles of personal property. Plea, that the property in the goods was in the defendant, and issue thereon.

Case against the defendant, for debauching one L. M. Johnson, the daughter and servant of the plaintiff, per quod servitium amisit, &c. The action was commenced May 1, 1839, and made returnable at the then next September term of the court of common pleas in this county, at which term, by an agreement of the parties, it was referred under a rule of court to the decision of certain persons as referees.

<p>A mortgage by a debtor of all his property, to secure the payment of a portion of his debts, leaving others unprovided for, is not an assignment within the meaning of the statute of July 5, 1834, entitled “ an act for the equal distribution of property assigned for the benefit of creditors.”</p> <p>Neither the continuing possession of .the goods mortgaged, nor even a sale of a portion of them, after the execution of the mortgage by the mortgager, with the assent of the mortgagee, is conclusive evidence of fraud, rendering the mortgage void as against creditors; but is, at most, evidence of fraud, proper to be submitted to the consideration of the jury.</p> <p>A creditor received a mortgage of a debtor of all his property, to secure a debt due to him, and pennitted him to retain possession of the property after the execution of the mortgage ; and the mortgager sold a portion of the property, with the assent of the mortgagee, and applied the proceeds to his benefit, and the remainder of the property came to the possession of the mortgagee. — Hdd, that the mortgage was not an assignment within the meaning of the act above referred to, and that the same was valid, and that the mortgagee was not liable as the trustee of the mortgager.</p>

Petition for a highway in Exeter, “ commencing on the northerly side of Front street, at the centre of Spring street, and thence running southerly to the new road leading from Exeter to Kensington, and striking said new road at the point where a straight line drawn from the first mentioned point on Front street, through a point forty feet westerly of the west end of the gun-house, will strike said new road ; the road to be forty-five feet wide, and said termini to be the…

Assumpsit, upon a promissory note, dated May 13, 1835, and payable to the plaintiff, or order, in three months. There was a subscribing witness to the note, and the plaintiff having offered evidence to show that the witness was residing out of the state, produced evidence to prove his hand writing, and that of the defendant.

Case, for an illegal assessment of a tax of $122.41, against the plaintiff, on the 27th day of March, 1838, and for causing him to be arrested on the 25th day of April, 1839, by the collector of taxes for the town of Chester, in Yermont, and imprisoned for non-payment thereof, so that he was compelled to pay the same with costs, in order to procure his release.

Debt, for rent. The case was submitted for the opinion of the court upon the following facts. • On the 9th day of December, 1831, the plaintiff owned an estate in the land for which rent is alleged… Held: that no rent could be recovered when it was payable on a certain day, and that day not arrived, when, by the death of the person on whose life the rent depended, the rent had ceased.

Assumpsit, on an agreement in writing, dated on the 4th day of September, 1841, and signed by the parties to the suit.

Assumpsit. The action was entered at the-April term, 1842, of the common pleas, and at that term the parties agreed to refer the action and all demands. Before that term the defendant had commenced an action against the plaintiff before a justice of the peace, and had obtained a judgment from which the plaintiff appealed.

In Equity. The bill alleged that the plaintiffs, George Watkins, William Buffum, Walton Mead, William Gage, and Sarah S. Bellows, were owners and occupants, severally, of messuages in Walpole village ; — that they, and those under whom they claim, have for forty years been entitled to the water running in a certain aqueduct, from the farm of the late Benjamin Bellows, across the main street in the village, and across a piece of land now owned by the defendant, Philip Peck,…

Petition in the common pleas, for a highway from a certain bridge in Keene to the old meeting-house in Troy.

Assumpsit, upon a promissory note, made by the defendants, dated on the 25th day of August, 1837, payable to Benjamin and Jonathan Haskell, or bearer, and by them transferred to the plaintiff.

Writ or Entry, wherein the plaintiff demanded a tract of land in Marlborough, in this county, lying on the west side of the old turnpike road, bounded, &c., and counted upon his own seizin within twenty years, and a disseizin by the defendant. The defendant pleaded the general issue.

<p>Trespass quar e clausum fregit. The declaration alleged that the defendant, on the 12th day of August, 1841, and on divers other days and times between that day and the day of the purchase of the plaintiff’s writ, broke and entered the plaintiff’s close, containing about ten acres, bounded on all sides by other parts of the plaintiff’s farm, and as the fence runs, &c., and with certain sheep trod down and consumed the plaintiff’s crops, &c.</p> <p>The defendant pleaded the general issue.</p> <p>The plaintiff introduced evidence to show that the sheep of the defendant broke into the close described in the plaintiff’s declaration, at the times alleged, and that said close was surrounded with a good and sufficient fence.</p> <p>But it appeared that the defendant’s farm lay adjoining that of the plaintiff, — that there had been between the former owners of said farms a division of the fence, on the line between them, duly made and recorded, — that the part of said fence which the defendant was bound to maintain was kept in sufficient repair, and that the sheep escaped from the defendant’s enclosure into the plaintiff’s pasture, through the insufficiency of the fence which the plaintiff was bound to repair, and thence into the lot mentioned in the declaration.</p> <p>The court below being of opinion that the plaintiff, under these circumstances, was not entitled to maintain this action, a verdict was taken for the defendant, by consent, subject to the opinion of this court upon the foregoing case.</p> <p>contended that the sheep in this case did not break into the enclosure described in the declaration, through a fence which the plaintiff was bound to keep in repair, as against the defendant, and consequently that the action is well maintained. He cited 1 N. H. Laws 196, sec. 9, and Avery vs. Maxwell, 4 N. H. Rep. 36.</p> <p>argued that division fences are for the benefit of adjoining owners, and are designed to promote the peace of both parties, — that the plaintiff had neglected her statute duty in relation to repairing the division fence between the adjoining lands of the parties, while the defendant had fully performed his duty in that respect, and that the escape of the sheep was wholly through the wrong or fault of the plaintiff. He cited the case of Rust vs. Low, 6 Mass. R. 99.</p>

Trespass, tried on review. The original writ was dated September 10,1841. On the former trial, the plaintiff ohtained a verdict for §42.09 damages, on which judgment was rendered October term, 1842. The defendant purchased out a writ of review, November 4, 1842, and the action was again tried upon the general issue.

Writ of Entry, to recover a tract of land in Cornish, called the glebe lot. Plea, nul disseizin. The plaintiff claimed title under a mortgage from James H. Bingham, to himself, dated November 11, 1837.

Assumpsit upon a bill of exchange, dated March 16,1836, for the sum of eighty dollars, drawn by the defendant upon Samuel and Joseph Waitt, and accepted by them. It was payable to Joseph Walker, Jr., or order, in three months after date, and by him, after it became due, indorsed to the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded the general issue.

Assumpsit, upon an account annexed to the writ. The defendant had instituted an action against the plaintiff, founded on his account, and by agreement of the parties both actions were submitted to the jury at the same time. Upon the trial, the plaintiff offered his hook of accounts, with his oath, in support of the charges in the account. The book contained, among other charges, or memoranda, the following: June, the —, 1840, begun to work for Ben.

Assumpsit, upon a promissory note for the sum of $>200. The defendants filed a plea of usury, setting forth that on the day of the making of the note it was corruptly agreed by and between the plaintiff, and the said Nicholas E. Sargent, that said Sargent' should pay to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff should receive of him, for the loan and forbearance, and giving day of payment of the said sum of two hundred dollars, more than after the rate of six pounds in the hundred,…

Debt, on bond dated on the 14th day of May, 1836, in the penal sum of two thousand dollars.

Scire facias, against the defendant as bail upon a writ sued out by the plaintiff against one Hezekiah Whitmore. At the April term, 1842, of the court of common pleas for this county, the plaintiff recovered judgment against Whit-more, upon which execution then issued, returnable on the third Tuesday of October, 1842.

Assumpsit. The first count stated a special agreement for the sale of a quantity of grass, then growing upon the land of the plaintiff, and the second was upon an account annexed to the writ, for the same cause of action. The plea was the general issue. The plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that he had agreed with one Ephraim Kempton, 2d, for the sale of the grass for the sum of $14.00. This agreement was by parol.

Assumpsit. The declaration stated that the defendant and one E. G. Eastman, now deceased, were on the 1st of April, 1837, jointly indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of ■$25, for goods before that time delivered to said Eastman & Burbank, they being partners in the lumbering business, and said goods being delivered on account of and for the benefit of said firm; and the plaintiffs on the 5th of May, 1837, received the note of Eastman for the goods, and discharged .and…

<p>Where the condition of a bond is for the personal performance, by the obligor, of one of two things, one of which may be done at any time within a limited period, and the other is to be performed, in default of the first, at the expiration of that time; if, within the time, the performance becomes impossible, by the act of God, the condition of the bond is sayed.</p> <p>The condition of a bond tras, that the principal obligor should apply to the proper authority, within a year, and take the poor debtors’ oath, or surrender himself to the creditor at the expiration of the year. He died about a month after its execution. — Held, that he had the whole year in which to take the oath, and that by his death the performance was excused.</p>

Trover. After a trial and verdict for the plaintiff, the defendant moved that it be set aside, and that a new trial be granted, on account of the partial, and improper conduct of the foreman of the jury ; and also because the plaintiff had tampered with some of the jurymen.

Case, for flowing the plaintiff’s meadow. The defendants asserted a right to flow the land of the plaintiff, and also the land of Clifford, Paige and others, by means of a pond, and a dam erected upon an ancient mill site, which had been maintained, as they alleged, since the year 1761. It appeared, from the testimony of Daniel H. Parker, that on the 7th day of April, 1836, he conveyed the premises to the plaintiff by deed of warranty.

Assumpsit, on a promissory note given by the defendant to the plaintiff’s intestate, payable to him, or order, on demand, with interest. — Plea, the general issue. The defendant introduced evidence to prove that he was induced to give the note by the false and fraudulent representations of the intestate, and that it was given without consideration.

Foreign Attachment. From the disclosure of the trustee it appeared, that in the year 1841 he was duly appointed administrator of the estate of Mary Wright, late of Hollis, and accepted the trust, and that on the 4th day of October, 1842, he settled his account of administration, and there was found in his hands the sum of $256.02; and a decree was made that he should distribute the same among the heirs at law, by paying to Charlotte Moore, a sister of the intestate, and the…

Writ or entry, to recover one undivided eighth part of the David Campbell farm, so called, situated in Litchfield, in this county. At the trial upon the general issue, the following facts appeared in evidence: David Campbell, the elder, in the year 1743 acquired a title to the demanded premises.

Assumpsit, on an account annexed to the writ, for visits and medicines as a physician. Plea, the general issue and statute of limitations, to which the plaintiff replied a new promise.

Indictment for forgery. After a trial, and verdict of guilty, the counsel for the prisoner moved in arrest of judgment, “ because there is no legal evidence that the paper purporting to be a bill of indictment was ever found to be ‘ a true bill’, by the grand jury.” The bill was signed by the foreman, but the words, ‘a true bill,’were omitted. The question was transferred to this court for determination.

Indictment, for stealing a horse, the property of one John Brown, of Amherst, on the 5th day of June, 1842. The prisoner had been indicted for entering the shop of one Spring, of Amherst, on the 29th day of May, 1842, and stealing property therefrom ; and at the August term, 1842, of the court of common pleas, was tried on that indictment by the first jury, and found guilty.

Trover, for certain boards, plank, and shingles, alleged to have been converted by the defendants, January 2d, 1840. It appeared in evidence, that in November, 1839, the plaintiff and certain other persons were the owners of a quantity of lumber, at Hallowell and Gardiner, in Maine.

Foreign Attachment, in which the town of Portsmouth and Thomas P. Treadwell were summoned as trustees.

Assumpsit. The declaration set forth that on the second of February, 1841, in consideration that the plaintiff would buy of the defendant, at his request, a certain horse, at and for the sum of one hundred and twenty-five dollars, the defendant then and there promised the plaintiff that the horse was sound, kind and manageable, and that if he did not, upon trial made by the plaintiff, prove to be kind and manageable, and did not suit the plaintiff, the defendant would take…

Covenant. On the 13th day of August, 1806, the defendant leased to the plaintiff certain premises for the term of her natural life.

Petition for Partition. It appeared in this case that Moses Green, the father of the petitioner, made his will on the thirtieth day of March, 1829. After bequeathing certain legacies to his two daughters, he made his son, Aaron Green, his residuary legatee, and appointed him executor of his will.

Assumpsit, upon a promissory note, dated on the 23d day of April, 1840, for $421.51, payable to the plaintiff, or order, in one year, with interest. The note was signed by one Emery as principal, and by the defendant as his surety. At the trial upon the general issue, the defendant, in order to show that tho plaintiff had discharged him by making a new contract with Emery, released Emery and introduced him as a witness.

Assumpsit, to recover money expended by the plaintiff for his expenses in travelling, and delivering lectures, and soliciting donations for the Asylum, by the direction and in the ’employment of the institution. The plaintiff offered in evidence the depositions of Samuel E. Coues and Alfred W. Haven. Annexed to the deposition of Mr. Coues was a paper signed by Messrs.

' In Error. At the January term of the court of common pleas, the plaintiffs in error were indicted for a violation of the provisions of the act regulating the sale of wine and spirituous liquors.