The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1847-05-13
State,
Jonathan C. Stevens.


Indictment Tor puolc nuisance in keeping
bowling alley in the village of Castlcton.
1t appeared that the respondent did keep bowl
ing alley in said village in the vicinity Of several of
the dwelling houses and shops there, but the evil
dence was contradictory as to the degree amount
of disturbance it occasioned. The court charged
that the disturbance must be general one, in order
to amount to such nuisance as is contemplated in
a public prosecution-that it must affect the public
generally, and to a considerable extent; that, at
least it should extend to the neighborhood that if
only one or two were affected by it, it merely
pirate nuisance for which those persons had rem
edy by a civil action that single disturbance or
interruption Of the public quiet was not Il sufficient
foundation for the prosecution but there must be
frequency about it, that it might reasonably be
looked for and expected to continue. The jury were
further told that their opinion to the moral intiu-
ence or effect of such an establishment was not to
be regarded in coming to conclusion; that it was
di fcult to define the precise line of distinction be-
tween public and a private nuisance, but that in
order to return verdict of guilty. they must be sat
isfed that there such frequent noises and dis
turbance occasoned by the establishment Of the res
pendent to render the enjoyment of life and prop
erty in that neighborhood uncomfortable, Under
these instructions the jury returned verdict Of ac-
quittal.
E. L. Ormsbee, States Attorney, for the prosoou-
ton.
Wright & Linsey, for the respondent
State,
Levi Bebee.
Information for selling distilled sprituous liquors
without license. Verdict guilty.
4. l.. Onnsbee, States Attorney, for the prosecu-
ton.
A. Pond for the respondent.
M0ndag april 2o.
Flower Brook Manufacturing Co..,
James Rice.
Trovcr for l50 cords of wood, a large quantity of
wooden CLOTH and several other articles, which it
appeared the defendant took by virtue of several
wrts of attachment against one John NJ Clark. 1t
appeared that previous to 1913, the plaintiffs had
been in business at Pawlet, and that during that
year the said John NJ. Clark bought in nearly all
the shares of the other members Of said corporation,
and thereafter had the whole conduct and manage
ment Of the business in the factory, which the plain
titls had formerly managed. The plaintiffs contend
cd that the said Clark carried this business in the
name Of AMI as the Flower b. NJ. Co., but the dett'
contendod that it was wholly on the account and
credit of the said Clark, in his individual capacity
A large amount of testimony was introduced by
both parties upon this point. The property attach
ed. and for Which this suit was brought, was that
which was used by the said Clark, in, or was the
produce Of this business. The jury were instruct
ed that the important question for them to decide
was. whether this business was carried on by said
Clark, on his own account as agent for the F. B.
NJ. Co., and consequently whether the property was
his or the plaintiffs If the former then the defend
ant was justified in taking it-but if the latter then
the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
The trial Of this case occupied until s o'clock, P
NJ. Tuesday, when it was submitted to the jury,who
the same evening returned verdict for the defend
ant.