Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 06.pdf/89

action of trespass, and the suit of Moss v. promptly answered the plea by the replica tion de injuria. Hindes came into existence with a declara I suppose that if I do not explain the tion alleging that Hindes "broke and en tered the close of the plaintiff, and with replication de injuria, the younger of your force and arms seized and carried away legal readers will not know its meaning. It twenty head of horned cattle of great means, that the replication alleges that the value, to wit, of the value of six hundred defendant "of his own wrong," " de injuria sua propria," and not for the causes in said dollars." It was the law of the land that the records plea alleged, committed the trespasses com of a school district could be amended at any plained of. It is the equivalent of a traverse time in aecordance with the fact. There or denial of every material fact alleged in were various memoranda scattered about the plea of justification. To this replication the counsel for the the district on the backs of letters, and the blank leaves of old almanacs, useful to amend defendant filed a special demurrer, and on by and with, and there was a town record * the question thus raised our Supreme Court which showed that the district was made by survived through repeated re-arguments, dividing one large into two districts. On an infinite number of authorities, much con this scanty material an adroit lawyer and sumption of midnight oil, and great acerbity of consultation. By a majority of one in a, special pleader, retained for the school dis trict, framed his plea of justification. It court of seven judges, it finally reached the averred the lawful organization of the dis conclusion that the replication was bad, that trict and its continuance, the written warn the defendant could plead as many facts as ing for the meeting, posted ten days in ad were necessary to its justification, but the vance, on the school-house door, " to see symmetry of the law of pleading required whether the district would vote to build a the plaintiff to select a single fact in the new school-house, and pay for it by a tax chain, deny that fact and thereby admit the on the grand list," the holding of the meet truth of all the others alleged! ing, the vote to build, to pay by a tax on The plaintiff's counsel undertook to com the grand list, the appointment of a building ply. There had been, in fact, no vote to raise committee, the warning for another meeting, the money by a tax on the grand list. He de its organization, the report of the building nied the averment that the district had so committee, its acceptance, the fixing of the voted. The district amended its record and amount to be raised by a tax, the appoint made it show the vote. In vain it was ob ment of the collector, the issue to him of jected that the district could only amend the tax warrant, his demand of the tax, the according to the fact, and there was no such plaintiff's refusal to pay, the seizure of the fact! The court held that such an objec cattle upon the warrant, the advertisement tion might be available elsewhere, but on for sale, and the sale under the warrant. In this trial the record could not be impeached short, whether / have done it or not, he in that way. Again the plaintiff amended averred in his plea every fact in the chain, his replication, and again the record was necessary to a legal justification, from the amended. How long the game of see-saw organization of the district to the sale of the went on, I do not remember, but finally I property. believe the plaintiff gave up and justice was The plaintiff's counsel was delighted. defeated, which "was a great triumph for There were a dozen facts, any one of which the law!" would break the chain of justification which A legislature of Vermont farmers failed could not be proved by the record. He to discover either the justice or the humor