The Vermont Tribune, Ludlow, June 21, 1889 Windsor County Court 6/21/1889 In the case of LEGG v. BRITTON, the jury found for the plaintiff, to recover $5,700. TUFTS v. Chester--This was an action by the plaintiff to recover from the town of Chester for caring for her mother, a town pauper, from 1882 to 1888, at which time a contract was made by the town to pay for her support. The evidence submitted tended to show an understanding that plaintiff should be paid. This the defendant denied. Verdict for the plaintiff; JOHNSON, HENRY and FLETCHER for defendant. DUMAS v. CHASE--This was a suit for breach of warranty and deceit in swapping harses at Plymouth, in February, 1888. The plaintiff introduced evidence to show that on the 29th day of February, 1888, he traded a buckskin mare for a gray mare with Dr. CHASE of Ludlow, and that CHASE warranted the horse to be sound and safe to drive. He also introduced evidence that the gray mare had fits, and that the defendant knew it was a fitty mare. this the defendant denied, and further denied any warranty or deceit. He introduced as evidence the testimony of GODDARD and KEATING, who testified that GODDARD brought the horse from Boston, about January, 1888, and shortly after this KEATING traded for him; and they neither knew or heard that this gray mare ever had fits. the plaintiff submitted evidence tending to show that GODDARD did in fact know that it was a fitty mare, and had stated that it was a fitty horse. Verdict for plaintiff; damages, $65.25. ENRIGHT and PAUL for plaintiff; GODDARD and SOUTHGATE for defendant. Wesley G. PUTNAM v. John D. WARD Estate--This was an appeal from the Probate Court, on the claim of plaintiff for services on the defendant estate's farm from 1872 to 1884. the plaintiff married the daughter of deceased, and resided with him; and together they carried on the farm. Plaintiff claimed an agreement on the part of deceased to pay him for his labor. The defendant estate claimed that all the agreement amounted to was that he should be left wit the farm, which Mr. WARD did do by leaving to plaintiff's wife the use of the farm during her natural life, with remainder to her heirs, if any such survive either the plaintiff or his wife; without which it was to go to the heirs of Mrs. WARD. Verdict for plaintiff for $470.83. EDDY, BATCHELDER & ALBEE for plaintiff; DAVIS, ENRIGHT and FRENCH for defendant. The court will take up State v. CLARK, for disposing of mortgaged property, Friday; after which the court will adjourn until July 8th at 3 p. m. Transcribed by Ruth Barton -- Ruth Barton mrgjb@sover.net Dummerston, VT