Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1854-04-21

AT the recent session of the Supreme
Court m Orange County, the following cases
were decided. which are general interest:
STEVENS Is. KENT.
This was rcplevn against the collector of
school district tax, to recover property
distrained TOR payment OF the TAX.
The Court, per Redfeld, j., held, That it
was cot the Insent or the statute, tnat the
moderator elected at the annual meeting Of
school district, must preside over every
other meeting Of the district during the
year, and that, in case OF his absence, the
meeting must fail-but that, If he were not
present at such other meetings. the vacancy
might then be supplied, aud 1t wodld be
presumed that he were not present, If moth
ing 10 the contrary appeared THAT reiu-
sal, by a prudential committee OF a district,
TO perform a duty required by his Office was
no reason for holding the office vacant -
! hat it is sufficient ground for treating COM
miteos as vacant, that new school district
has been erected, and that the committee
nan falls within such district THAT 1t is
no objection to the legality of a tax voted
by a school district for the purpose OF erect.
ing u school house IN a particular location,
that ii has been held, upon indictment fo-
nuisance, That the district had no right 10
erect the house on the place they did =
That the district would have the right to re-
move the house to some other place, not OBJ
iectiOnab lo--and that the case was not diff
terent from one, where the right # the dis
trlct TO the location Of their school house
soon after It's erection, had been lost by re-
covery IN IN action of ejectmenL
BANFILL, Ex'R. Us. Estate OF BANrILL.
Appeal from the decree of the Probate
Cont, removing the appellant from the Of
fee of Executor, for breach of official duty
The Court, per Bennett, j held, That the
Probate Court had the right, under the stat
ute, to remove the appellant from his Office
OF Executor, for the cause alleged THAT
IT was wlihin the discretion of the Probate
Court THAT the County Courl had power,
upon appeal, To revise the decision OF the
Probate Court upon question within their
discretion hut that the Supreme Court
had no power upon exceptions, to revise the
decision of the County Court, affirming the
decree of the Probate Court.
STATE u.s. CoMsTocK.
The Court, per Bennett, j.. held, That
il Is no objection to the complaint Of town
grand juror. that It is not stated, upon ITS
face, to nave been presented upon his oath
of office that 1t will be presumed that be
has taken the necessary oath, aud that his
acts, purportlng 10 be done IN his official
character, will be held to have been done
under his official oath and that complaint
under the license law, in the form prescrib.
en- by the Legislature, that the responder,
became I" dealer in intoxicating liquors,
not having a license therefor" sufficiently
informed the respondent Of the cause ard
nature of the accusation, within the Constr
tuition of this State; but that, as 1t was evl
IDENTIFY intended, that this form should b.
used both when the quantity sold was les
and when i, was more than 20 gallons, tie
Court, upon a plea of guilty, OF genenl
verdict Of guilty, could only sentence fr
the lesser offence; and that if anything d.
ferent were desired, special verdict must
be taken.
SaAw rs. PEcKErT & GERRY.
The Court, per Redfeld, J., held, That
tax collector had no right TO demand inle-
est upon the amount Of a although net
paid within reasonable time after demand.