Volume 6 — Connecticut Reports

IN error. This was an action of assumpsit ; in which the plaintiff stated his cause of action in two counts.

This was an action against Isaac and Kneeland Townsend, as joint makers of a promisory note, payable to Kneeland Townsend, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff.

IN ERROR. This was an information against the plaintiff in error, for a violation of the statute “ concerning the students of Yale-College passed in May, 1822.

This was an action of book debt, brought by the plaintiff as executor of Reuben Palmer, deceased, against Christopher Green and Reuben Palmer, traders in company under the firm of Palmer & Green, making a profert of the testator’s book, and demanding 900 dollars.

<p>In a remonstrance against an award of auditors, it is necessary to state, with reasonable certainty, a good cause for setting aside the award.</p> <p>Therefore, where a remonstrance against an award of auditors, in an action of book debt, stated, "that the auditors found, that the plaintiff's account against the defendant was more than the defendant's account against the plaintiff, and that more of the plaintiff's account was not barred by the statute of limitations than the difference between the plaintiff's and the defendant's account ;" it was held, that such remonstrance was insufficient, as it did not shew, with the requisite certainty, that the plaintiff had any just debt against the defendant.</p> <p>The 17th section of the statute tit. 158. c. 1. ed. 1808. is not to be regarded as a mere act of limitation, having for its object the protection of men against state demands, and operating upon the remedy only, without destroying the debt, but as an act of prohibition, qualified with respect to time, but otherwise absolute. Consequently, after the expiration of the time limited without suit, charges embraced by the statute do not constitute a debt, capable of being applied or set off against the charges of the adverse party, in the liquidation of mutual accounts. of the adverse party in the liquidation of mutual accounts.</p>

This was an action of slander, for words, variously stated in different counts, imputing to the plaintiff the crime of perjury. The declaration averred, that the plaintiff from his youth, had sustained a fair character, and had never been justly chargeable with this crime.

IN ERROR. This was an action of account in favour of Mary Spalding, against the defendants, as administrators of the estate of Samuel Barstow, deceased, stating, that said Samuel Barstow was, by the county court of Windham county, in August, 1785, appointed conservator of the estate of the plaintiff; and that he thereupon received of her the sum of 590 dollars in money, together with sundry articles of household furniture and wearing apparel, which he used and occupied, and…

This was an action of ejectment, for two pieces of land in Lebanon, tried, on the general issue, at Brooklyn, January term, 1825, before Brainard, J. The plaintiff claimed title to the land in question, by virtue of the will of his father, Gilbert Chappel, deceased; of which the clauses, material in this case, were these : “ I do hereby give and allow unto my beloved wife, Rebecca, the use and improvement of one third part of my home farm, during her widowhood ; also, the…

This was an action on the statute prohibiting the bringing into and leaving in this state of poor persons, not being inhabitants of the town in which they are left, (p. 282. tit. 51. s. 10.) to recover the penalty given by that statute.

IN ERROR. This was a bill in chancery for the foreclosure of a mortgage.

IN ERROR. This was a suit for the maintenance of a bastard child, instituted and prosecuted by the select-men of the town of Chaplin, against Andrew Hartshorne, charged with begetting such child on the body of Melinda Colburn. The complaint averred, That the mother of said child had, at all times, neglected and omitted to bring forward, in her own name, and prosecute to final judgment, her suit for the maintenance of said child.

This was an action of assumpsit, for money expended by the plaintiffs, from the 21st of February, 1818, to the 1st of April, 1820, for the support of Elizabeth Underwood and Mary-Ann and Thomas, her minor children, alleged to have been, at the time of furnishing such support, paupers, legally settled in the town of Hebron. A case, stated and agreed to, by the parties, was reserved for the advice of this Court.

This was an information against Stewart, in two counts. In the first count, he was charged with having set fire to and burned a certain barn or out-house of Russel Dutton, in East-Haddam, being parcel of his mansion-house ; and in the second, with having set fire to and burned a certain barn, stable or outhouse, being the property of Russel Dutton, not being parcel of any dwelling-house.

IN ERROR. This was an action brought by Gladwin, against John L. Lewis, Esq. sheriff of Middlesex county, for an escape, returnable to a justice of the peace.

This was an action of ejectment for three fourths of a certain grist-mill, and the whole of certain oakum works, in Haddam. The cause was tried at Middletown, February term 1825, before Hosmer, Ch. J. The plaintiff claimed title to the demanded premises, by virtue of the levy of an execution in his favour, against Sylvester Chapman, one of the defendants, in December, 1823.

At the term of the city court of the city of Middletown, in December, 1821, Henry Lyman recovered judgment, by default, on a promissory note, against Arthur W. Magill, for the sum of 77 dollars, 18 cents.

IN ERROR. Upon the reversal of the decree of the city court in Magill v. Lyman, (a) Magill, at April term, 1823, presented again his petition for a new trial, of the same tenor with the former, but made Henry Lyman only a party. At May term, 1823, the court ordered notice to be given to Justin Lyman and Thomas Hubbard.

This was an action of assumpsit for money expended in the support of a pauper; and was tried at Tolland, December term, 1824, before Peters, J. The declaration stated, that on the 4th day of December, 1823, by virtue of an execution for debt, Samuel Baldwin, an inhabitant of Chaplin, was committed to the common gaol in Tolland, in the county of Tolland, whereof the plaintiff was keeper, and was therein confined until the 10th of August, 1824, but neglected to take the oath…

This was an action of debt on a probate bond, executed by the defendants, as sureties with Leveret S. Chapman, since deceased, executor of the last will and testament of Isham Chapman; the condition of which bond was, that Leveret S. Chapman should well and truly execute said will, and settle the estate of said Isham according to law, and in pursuance of the provisions of said will, and the orders of said court.

This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, brought on the statute directing proceedings against forcible entry and detainer, demanding treble damages.

This was an action of assumpsit. The plaintiff, in his declaration, averred, that Jacob Wilcox was indebted to him, on a promissory note, dated the 25th of November, 1822, in the sum of 150 dollars ; and that, in consideration the plaintiff would forbear the collection of it, for a year, the defendant, by a writing under his hand, on the back of the note, guarantied the payment of it, whether a suit should, or should not be brought against the maker.

This was an action of assumpsit, in five counts. Held: as money in his hands. Goodenow v. Tyler, 7 Mass. Rep. 36. 45. Le Guen v. Gouverneur & Kemble, 1 Johns. Ca. 437. 461. n. 3. That the defendant had no claim against the plaintiff for freight; it being Willard's duty to transport the goods; and the contract for the transportation of them being made with Willard personally.

IN ERROR. This was an information against Hezekiah Salisbury for theft, alleging, that he, on the 4th of October, 1825, stole and carried away thirteen bills against the Hartford Bank, each for the payment and of the value of ten dollars, issued by the president, directors and company of the Hartford Bank, then an incorporated bank in this state, before that time incorporated by the laws of this state ; and one bill issued by said bank, for the payment and of the value of…

This was an appeal from a decree of the court of probate, approving the will of Philander Clark, deceased ; tried at Hartford, September term, 1825, before Hosmer, Ch. J. On the 29th of December, 1821, Alson Hoskins mortgaged a tract of land to Isaac Owen and Philander Clark, to secure certain distinct debts due to them respectively.

IN ERROR. This was a bill in chancery to obtain a legal title to certain real estate. Held: that the subsequent custody of it, by the grantor, did not destroy the effect of the delivery. 2. That if the delivery of the deeds could be dispensed with, the plaintiffs had adequate remedy at law.

This was a bill in chancery for a foreclosure. The bill stated, That on the 8th of December, 1818, Timothy Benedict and Isaac Tucker were justly indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of 600 dollars, for which they gave the plaintiff five promissory notes, four for the sum of 100 dollars each, and one for the sum of 200 dollars, all payable, by the makers jointly and severally, to the plaintiff, within three years from the date, with interest annually; and that to secure the…

This was a bill for a foreclosure, brought by Orphia Bacon, surviving executrix of the will of her late husband, Garry Bacon, deceased, against James B. Fairman, executor of Timothy Shepard, deceased, and Moss K. Botsford, a purchaser of the equity of redemption. On the 14th of February, 1816, Shepard, being indebted to Bacon, in the sum of 1540 dollars, gave his note for that sum, and secured it by mortgage.

This was an action on the case, for a false return of a writ of attachment against the plaintiff.

IN ERROR. This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, brought originally by Simeon Beach against Elisha Clark, before William Kellogg, Esq. a justice of the peace, alleging, that the plaintiff, on the 1st of May, 1823, was well seised and possessed of a certain tract of land, upon which the defendant entered, trode down and destroyed the grass, &c. demanding seven dollars damages.

This was an action of ejectment, tried at Litchfield, August term, 1825, before Peters, J. The plaintiffs claimed title to the demanded premises, by virtue of the levy of five several executions, one in favour of each of the plaintiffs, against one Amasa Hinman. In support of this title, the plaintiffs, after proving the judgments, offered in evidence the executions, which were in common form, and the returns of the officer thereon.

This was an action of debt, brought by Hannah Ann Knapp, against the defendants, as executors of Lucy Ann Weed, deceased, to recover a legacy, given by her will to the plaintiff.

IN ERROR. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Seeley against Hendrick, on a special executory contract, containing mutual stipulations.

This was a bill in chancery, stating, That the plaintiff and Epenetus Curtis, since deceased, being partners in trade at Bridgeport, in this state, on the 1st of September, 1821, agreed, that Curtis should obtain the office of deputy sheriff under the sheriff of Fairfield county, if it could be lawfully obtained by him; that he should devote as much of his time as should be necessary for the faithful execution of the office to the duties of it, while the plaintiff should…

This was an action of slander. The declaration, after averring the good character of the plaintiff, stated, that a transient person, by the name of Willis Cole, came to a sudden and untimely death in… Held: with the music of a violin, at or about the time in question. A fracas took place in the room, and much confusion ensued, not far from the same time.

This was an action of ejectment, tried at Fairfield, December term, 1825, before Hesmer, Ch. J. The plaintiffs claimed title to the demanded premises, by virtue of the levy of an execution in their favour against the defendant; and it was admitted, that the plaintiffs acquired a good title, unless the levy was void, by reason of the fees and charges of the officer endorsed on the execution. The exceptionable items were the following: “Demand, 12 cts. Levy, 12 cts.

IN ERROR. This was a bill in chancery, brought by Beers against Broome, before the superior court in Fairfield county, to foreclose the equity of redemption in certain mortgaged premises; and was… Held: or respecting the title of Wright. Had not Wright been in embarrassed circumstances, there would have been no occasion for making the enquiry.

This was an action of trespass for false imprisonment, tried under the general issue, with notice of special matter, at New-Haven, January term, 1826, before Bristol, J. The plaintiff was a member of, and liable to do duty in, the 7th company of the 22nd regiment of infantry in the militia of this state: and the defendant was the commanding officer of that company.

This was an action of indebitatus assumpsit for money had and received, by the defendants, for the use of the plaintiff.

This was an action of ejectment, tried at New-Haven, August term, 1825, before Hosmer, Ch. J. The plaintiff, to establish his title to the demanded premises, offered one George Munn as a witness. The defendant objected to his competency, on the ground that the suit was prosecuted for Munns benefit, and that he was interested in the event of it; and the defendant adduced testimony to that point.

This was a bill in chancery. The Eagle Bank is a corporation, established, by an act of the legislature, in October, 1811, for banking purposes, with the usual powers of such an institution ; the charter being, at all times, subject to alteration, amendment or revocation, by the General Assembly. (a) The plaintiff is a creditor of this corporation to the amount of between 90,000 and 100,000 dollars. The bank, on the 15th September, 1825, failed, and was in fact insolvent.

This was an action of assumpsit, commenced September 5th, 1822. The declaration contained several counts. Held: that where the statute is a bar to a claim in an action at law, it is equally available against the same claim in a suit in chancery. Lansing v. Starr, 2 Johns. Ch. Rep. 151. Roosevelt v. Mark, 6 Johns. Ch. Rep. 289. In the present case, the foundation of the action, is a book account, consisting of charges properly made on book.

IN ERROR. This was an action upon a covenant in a deed, executed by the defendants, conveying to the plaintiff a piece of land. The declaration consisted of two counts.

This was an action of ejectment for land in East-Haddam, tried at Middletown,_February term, 1826, before Bristol, J. The plaintiff claimed title to the demanded premises, by virtue of a deed of conveyance from Charles Griswold, Esq. administrator with the will annexed, on the estate of Gen. Dyar Throop, not administered upon.

This was a bill in chancery, stating the following case. On the 10th of February, 1820, Gilbert Chappel made and published his will, containing the following clauses. “I do hereby give and allow unto my beloved wife, Rebecca, the use and improvement of one third part of my home farm, during her widowhood; also, the use of one third part of the buildings standing thereon.” “I do also give to my beloved wife the use and improvement of all my estate, both real and personal,…

This was an action of trover, for 6000 yards of domestic cotton goods, tried at Norwich, January term, 1826, before Peters, J. The plaintiffs claimed title to the property in question, by virtue of an assignment from Andrew Hutchinson; to establish which, they introduced two instruments.

This was a bill in chancery, stating the following case. Many years ago, Simeon Dean, the father of the plaintiff, died, leaving to him a valuable farm in Ashford; of which he took possession under a quit-claim deed from his mother. Being a man of feeble understanding, incompetent to the management of a farm, he was advised, by his friends, to convey it to his sister, Tamesin Stoddard, in trust, for the use and benefit of himself, his heirs and assigns.

This was an action of trespass quart clausum fregit, tried at Brooklyn, September term, 1825, before Bristol, J. More than fifteen years before the commencement of this action, Nathaniel Manning, the plaintiff’s father, who then owned the land described in the declaration, placed an aqueduct in the land of the defendant; and, by means thereof, conducted the water out of its natural course, from a spring on the defendant’s land, on to his own land; and at the end of the…

This was an action of ejectment, for a tract of land in Pom-fret ; tried at Brooklyn, September term, 1825, before Bristol, J. The plaintiffs claimed title to the demanded premises, as the heirs at law of Sylvester Wickes; and the defendant, as the lessee of the Yearly Meeting of the people called Quakers, who claimed tobe the devisees of Wickes, andas the lessee of Rowland Greene, who claimed as residuary devisee.

This was an action qui tam, on the statute “ for the detection and punishment of secret assaults.” (Stat. 407. tit. 85.) brought originally before a justice of the peace.

The court of probate, in the settlement of the estate of Samuel Bailey, deceased, found, that Roger Bailey, one of his sons, had been advanced in the sum of 1000 dollars. From this finding and the decree of the court thereon, Roger Bailey appealed to the superior court, assigning as the reason, that he never received any advancement of his portion of his father’s estate, and that he was still entitled to his full share.

This was an action of debt, brought by Isaac Spencer, Esq. as treasurer of the state, against Eliphalet Huntington and Salmon Champion jun., to recover the sum of 50 dollars, as a penalty for a violation of the statute regulating the sale of spiritous liquors.

This was an action of assumpsit, tried at Brooklyn, January term, 1823, before Brainard, J. In one of the counts, of which there were several, the cause of action was stated thus : That on the 14th of April, 1819, Ephraim Angell, the son of the defendant, being indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of 145 dollars, 36 cents, in payment of the same, made and delivered to the plaintiffs his writing or note in the words and figures following, viz. “ Providence, 14th April, 1819.

IN ERROR. In an action on the case, brought by Cleaveland against Randall, the plaintiff declared, That a certain tract of land in En-field, being in the possession and occupation of one Charles Chase, as tenant thereof to the plaintiff, the reversion of which belonged to the plaintiff the defendant, intending to injure the plaintiff in his reversionary estate in the premises, did, at divers times between the 1st of April, 1823, and the commencement of this suit, wrongfully,…

IN ERROR. In an action of assumpsit before a justice of the peace, the declaration stated, That on the 26th of September, 1823, the plaintiff, being exempt from military duty, at the request of the defendant, enlisted into a company of cavalry, whereof the defendant was captain, and in consideration thereof, the defendant agreed, that the plaintiff’s name should be erased from the roll of the company, whenever the defendant should cease to be its captain; that on the 6th of…

This was an, action of ejectment, tried at Hartford, February term, 1827, before, Hosmer, Ch. J. The plaintiffs claimed title to the demanded premises, as devisees of John Watson, deceased, by the levy of certain executions in favour of the devisor against the defendant.

This was a bill in chancery, tried at Litchfield, August term, 1826, before Daggett, J. On the 14th of April, 1812, one Luther Walker, owned, in fee-simple, certain pieces of land, of the value of 700 dollars, a part of which were subject to a mortgage in favour of Isaac Green, to secure the payment of a note due to him from Lucy Gridley and Walker, for 52 dollars, 74 cents.

This was an action of book debt, brought by the plaintiffs against Isaac Chapman and Russel Mott, as surviving partners of the defendants and Henry R. Mott, deceased. Held: that until these goods were put on board, they remained the separate property of the purchaser, and the others were not liable for them. 3.

This cause, havingbeen entered in the docket of the superior court, on reversa! of the judgment of the county court, pursuant to the decision of the supreme courts of errors,(ante 142-165 ) was tried again at Litchfield, February term, 1827, before Lanman, J.; the issue being on the defendant’s plea of title in Abby Betsey Mills, originally pleaded before the justice.

This was an appeal from probate. The court of probate for the district of Sharon, charged in the settlement of the estate of Nathaniel Clark, sundry sums as advanced to several of his children, and directed a deduction thereof from the distributive shares of the children so advanced, in conformity with the provisions of the 30th section of statute, tit. Estates.

IN ERROR. This was a bill in chancery, brought by Northrop against Hatch, stating, that the plaintiff claimed title to a piece of land in New-Milford, with a dwelling-house standing thereon, of the value of 400 dollars, by the levy of an execution in his favour against Daniel Lyon, on the 16th of November, 1824; and to recover the seisin and possession of such land, the plaintiff had commenced an action of ejectment against Lyon, Hatch and others, which was still pending in…

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Downs against Smith, for the price of a pair of oxen. On the trial of the cause, in the county court, of the general issue, the defendant offered Nathaniel B. Smith as a witness, to testify, that the cattle mentioned in the de aration had been paid for, by the defendant ; it being agred by the parties, that such payment, if made, should be a ence under the general issue.

Boardman obtained a judgment, in the county court, against Beckley, and having taken out execution, caused it to be levied on his personal property. Beckley then sued out a writ of error on such judgment, and had it served on the creditor and the officer holding the execution. After this, the officer collected the execution. The writ of error was duly returned to the superior court; and the judgment of the county court was reversed.

This was an action on the covenants in a deed, from John Sturdevant, deceased, and John S. Sturdevant, to Samuel Lockwood, the plaintiff dated the 19th of July, 1820. The covenants were those usually inserted in our deeds of warranty, and were expressed in the same terms.

This was an action for a libel, brought by Dunning against Hillhouse. Held: he makes an arrangement with Minor, and instructs him, poor soul, to stultify himself, and to besmear his own character.

IN ERROR. This was an action of trespass on the case, for the obstruction of a way, by a stone wall, brought originally before a justice of the peace, demanding seven dollars damages. Held: that the statute extended to all other gaolers and sheriffs. Other cases illustrating the same principle are collected in Bac. Abr. tit. Statute. I. 5. 6. See also Co. Litt. 77. b. 280. b. 365. b. The People v. The Utica Insurance Company, 15 Johns. Rep. 358.

This was an information, filed by the state’s attorney, in the superior court, against the defendant, alleging, That there is, and for fifty years last past, has been, in the town of Danbury, a public highway for all the people of this state to pass and re-pass, at pleasure, with their teams, carriages, &c. ; and that, on the, 1st of May, 1825, the defendant, with force and arms, erected, and to the date of said information, continued upon said highway, a large stone wall,…

This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, in common form, instituted before a justice of the peace, demanding 35 dollars damages. The declaration was demurred to, before the justice of the peace; and was by him adjudged sufficient. The defendant appealed the cause to the county court. In the county court, the defendant pleaded a special plea, admitting his entry, &c. and alleging in justification a right of way over the locus in quo.

in error. In the superior court, Edward Nash filed a bill of interpleader, making Truman Smith, Aaron B. Woodruff, Lewis Wood-ruff and Minot Mitchell, parties, defendants.

This was an action on the case, brought to recover the dividends, declared, in March, 1824, on thirty shares of the stock of The Byram Manufacturing Company, owned by the plaintiff, The cause was tried at Fairfield, at an adjourned term, in April, 1826, before Bristol, J. The By ram Manufacturing Company, was incorporated, by the legislature of this state, in October, 1813, on the petition of Jared Peck and others, shewing, that they had purchased a tract of land in…

IN ERROR. This was an action of account, brought by Redfield against Davis, for 862 barrels of flour, and 3856 bushels of wheat, alleged to have been received, by the defendant, to transport to South America, and to dispose of, for the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained judgment quod computer; and the cause went to auditors ; who reported, that the defendant was nothing in arrear.

This was an action against Abram Hawkins, as the indorser of a promissory note for 100 dollars, made by David Hawkins, dated September 30th, 1820, payable to Abram Hawkins, or order, six months after date. The declaration contained two counts.

This was an information, in behalf of the state, for the crime of inGest, under the 63rd section of the act concerning crimes. This offence was charged to have been committed with Anna Roswell, the legitimate daughter of the prisoner.

This was an action of assault and battery, tried at New-Haven, August term, 1826, before Lanman, J. The defendants pleaded Not guilty, with notice, that under this plea they should give in evidence certain matters in relation to a writing, owned and possessed by them, signed by Elizabeth Brooks, and witnessed by her sister, the plaintiff’s wife, which explained away and refuted certain slanderous stories, which had been in circulation relating to a minor daughter of one of…

in ERROR. This was a bill in chancery, preferred to the county court, by Anson Meigs, James Robinson and Samuel Robinson, against Sophia Dimock. The material facts alleged in the bill, and found by the court, were these.

This was an action of assumpsit for the use and occupation of land and buildings, in Middletown ; tried at Middletown, February term, 1827, before Peters, J. On the 12th of August, 1820, the plaintiff levied an execution on the land and buildings described in the declaration ; and they were duly set off to him as the estate of the Middletown Manufacturing Company.

This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit ; tried, on the general issue, at Middletown, August term, 1826, before Lanman, J. In 1811, the plaintiff owned the lot described in his declaration, and the land adjoining thereto on the South, now owned by the defendant. The plaintiff threw up a bank, and sunk a ditch, across the land, for his own accommodation, and for a division between the North and South lots.

This was an information at common law, filed by the state’s attorney, in the superior court, alleging, That Howard, being lawfully in the custody of Ebenezer Smith, a constable, by virtue of a warrant for a breach of the peace, and required to give bond with surety for his appearance before the county court “with force and arms, did feloniously break away and escape from and out of the custody of him, the said Ebenezer Smith, constable as aforesaid, and against the peace ;…

This was an action of indebitatus assumpsit for money paid, for money lent, and for goods sold and delivered ; tried at Middletown, February term, 1827, before Peters, J To each of the counts the defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave notice of a set-off.

IN ERROR. This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, made by Hempstead, on the 5th of September, 1818, for 1361 dollars, 62 cents, payable to Stephen Chandler, or order, ten months after date, and by him indorsed to Reed, the plaintiff. To the declaration the defendant pleaded a discharge under an act of the legislature of the state of New-York.

This was an action of ejectment for one undivided tenth part of a tract of land in Waterford. Held: that the statute alluded to invalidated deeds of real estate, and that such was the law. But he further informed them, that upon the facts proved and admitted, in the case, as before stated, Patty, at the execution of the deed, was not under the care of a parent or guardian, with, in the intendment of the law. 3.

This was an action of trespass vi et armis, against Theophilus R. Hyde and Jedediah Leeds, who were copartners in business at New-Orleans, under the firm of Hyde & Leeds. The declaration contained two counts. The first count was general, alleging a forcible taking out of the plaintiff’s possession, and the detention, on the 4th of March, 1824, of the plaintiff’s sloop Eliza-Ann, at New-Orleans, in the state of Louisiana, together with her tackle and apparel.

This was an action of assumpsit to recover of the defendants the avails of a certain inland bill of exchange, alleged to have been received by the defendants, for the use of… Held: that they could not protect themselves from liability, on the ground that they acted as agents ; for, as Gibbs, Ch. J. said, when the plaintiffs read the names of the defendants upon these bills as indorsers, they had a right to consider, that they intended to make themselves liable as principals.

This was an action of trespass quart clausum fregit, against Amos Jaques and Fenner Jaques, alleging, that the defendants, on the 15th of July, 1825, with force and arms, broke and entered into and upon the plaintiff’s land, (previously described) and with horses and cattle, owned by the defendants, trode down, eat and consumed the corn and grass then and there growing.

This was a writ of mandamus, on the complaint of Siah Fuller, directed to the Trustees of the Academic School in Plainfield, requiring them to restore the plaintiff to the office of trustee in that institution, or to appear before the superior court, and shew sufficient cause to the contrary.

IN ERROR. This was an action of book debt, brought by Welton against Morse, and tried, on the general issue, in the county court of New-Haven county, November term, 1825. The plaintiff's claim was for the services of his son Leonard Welton, for the defendant, at divers times between the 1st of April, 1824, and the 1st of April, 1825.

This was an action of indebitatus assumpsit, to recover of the defendant 116 dollars, being the amount of the dividend, which had been declared on fifty-eight shares of the stock of The Oxford Turnpike Company, and which had been received by the defendant.

IN ERROR. This was an appeal from a decree of the court of probate for New-Haven district, passed on the 22d of March, 1826 Thirza Mansfield, the widow of Joel Mansfield, deceased, being appellant, and the heirs of said Joel Mansfield, appellees.