Opinion
Opinion Filed May 1, 1951.
Evidence.
1. The grand list books of a town are public documents, and are admissible in evidence if pertinent to the issue.
2. The difference in value of a wood lot, before and after the cutting of timber, as shown by the grand list, is pertinent evidence as to the value of the timber cut.
3. Exceptions which are inadequately briefed merit no consideration on appeal.
4. On appeal the burden is on the excepting party to show harmful error, that if error was committed his rights were injuriously affected thereby, and the risk of failure is upon him.
ACTION OF TRESPASS for wrongful cutting of timber. Trial by jury, Windsor County Court, December Term, 1949, Miles, J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. Reversed and remanded.
Loren R. Pierce for the defendant.
Alban J. Parker and Palmer D. Ainsworth for the plaintiff.
February Term, 1951.
Present: SHERBURNE, C. J., JEFFORDS, CLEARY, ADAMS and BLACKMER, JJ.
This is an action of trespass brought to recover treble damages for wrongful cutting of timber by the defendant on the so called "Pond Lot" in the Town of Plymouth belonging to the plaintiff. Trial was by jury with verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The case is here on the defendant's exceptions.
One exception is to the exclusion of a duly certified copy "of the appraisal of the real estate of George and Harold Ripley, of Ludlow, Vermont, for the years 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949 as shown by the grand list books of said town of Plymouth for these years." It was offered for the purpose of showing the value of the "Pond Lot" and "as showing that its value was reduced only one dollar on the grand list after all this cutting had been done on it." The offered appraisal is a public document. Clement v. Graham, 78 Vt. 290, 312, 63 A 146. Therefore, it was admissible in evidence if pertinent to the issue. Ripton v. Brandon, 80 Vt. 234, 238-240, 67 A 541; Citizens' Bank v. Fitchburg Fire Ins. Co., 86 Vt. 267, 275, 84 A 970; Humphrey v. Wheeler, 92 Vt. 47, 49, 101 A 1018. One issue in the case at bar was the value of the timber claimed to have been cut by the defendant on the "Pond Lot." The grand list was pertinent to that issue. The difference in the value of the "Pond Lot" before and after the cutting was some evidence of the value of the timber claimed to have been cut. The weight of that evidence, however slight, was for the jury to determine. Its exclusion was prejudicial.
Numerous other exceptions were briefed; because none of the questions raised by them are likely to recur on a new trial of the case we shall not mention them except to point out two faults. Most of them are inadequately briefed and fail to show harmful error. Exceptions that are inadequately briefed merit no consideration. Bressett v. O'Hara, 116 Vt. 118, 123, 124, 70 A.2d 238; Sears v. LaBerge, 116 Vt. 168, 172, 71 A.2d 687; Trudo v. Lazarus, 116 Vt. 221, 225, 73 A.2d 306. The burden is on the excepting party to show harmful error, that if error was committed his rights were injuriously affected thereby, and the risk of failure is upon him. Supreme Court rule 9; Meyette v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., 110 Vt. 345, 356, 6 A.2d 33; Long v. Leonard, 113 Vt. 258, 262, 32 A.2d 679; Turner v. Bragg, 113 Vt. 393, 400, 35 A.2d 356; Macauley v. Hyde, 114 Vt. 198, 203, 42 A.2d 482. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.