Ainsworth v. Hutchins
This text of 52 Vt. 554 (Ainsworth v. Hutchins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This action is trespass quare clausum for the wrongful acts of the wife Nancy C., in entering plaintiff’s house and destroying furniture and clothing therein. On trial the defendants claimed in argument that Jennie Rogers was most probably the person who did the mischief. The exceptions state that she was sent to this house on errands by Mrs. Marsh from time to time, and that there was no evidence tending to show that she went there when not sent. The defendants object to the exclusion [557]*557of the testimony of Merrill Owen, that he had seen Jennie go to and from said house ; and Herman Morse, that after the mischief was perpetrated he had seen Jennie in the house. This testimony tended to show that said Jennie had the opportunity to do the mischief ; but this was proved, and fully appeared from the plaintiff’s testimony. The court might well exclude proof of a fact already conceded by the adversary. The letter from defendant to Mrs. Pierce was probably not admissible ; but we have no knowledge of its contents, and, of course, cannot predicate error upon its exclusion. Judgment and the certificate therein affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
52 Vt. 554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ainsworth-v-hutchins-vt-1880.