Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1862-02-13
Chr Rutlapa Arraid.
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY Is.
SUPREME COURr-FrBnuARy TEEN,
1867 RUTLAND COUNTY,

FIERr0iSr, kfLLoGo and FEcK, and on
the last day, Judge AIMS.
The dotke, of causes was unusually large,
ard some OF them OF great importance -
Tie court heard all the causes that were
TO be beard with CONT ldahle patience,
and decided them with great ability and tai
ent The casts previously heard and now
decided were ,be following:
Q. William ID Cooledge v, Milton Norton.
Judgment Tor defendant pro ferma reversed |
and plaintiff permitted TO become nonssit un-
der rule W II Smith and Lins.y & Prout
for plaintiff, and b Frshie and d L Nicbol-
son for defendant
/ 3. The Same VS. Tilly B Norou. The
SAM decision in this case. Attorneys the
same
4 Cynthia s MALAY VS. Berish NJ Leach
Verdict for plaintiff before affirmed, Linsly
& Prout and + j Phelps for pisintifi ID +
EsAslsop, d Roberts and Briggs & Nichol-
son for defendant.
The following causes entered at the pres
ent term were decided as follows:
l3 Israel D4vey vs Edwin Larorencc.-
Judgment for d. ftndans below reversed and
remanded. J Prout for pliin,f; c Linsly
and Z Phelps for defendant.
IL. Seneca Smith vs. Es' of D lverance
! Rodgers, Judgment for plaintiff aflirmrd.-
l E Edserton for plaintiff; Linsly & Prout for
defendant. st
Is. NY Brintnall vs. saratog, & White
hall Railroad Co. Verdict for defendant sf
h,med. Perpoint & Nichols for plaintiff
Linay & Prons and Z ] .,n.ip, = for defendant
ie. Anos Douglass rs Alonzo Wh,temore.
Verdict for plaintiff affirmed, Linsly &
|. Proui and f Phelps for plaintiff; Briggs &
Nicholson for defennant.
II. Berjsmin aimee VS. Danforth d Gil
more. Judgment for plaintiff affirmed. III
II Cook fer plaintiff; Spencer Green for
defendant.
Is, 10, 20. A p Tear vs. Jonas Lsmpson.
JUDGMENT for plaintiff affirmed. a L Miner
for plaintiff Washhurn & Marsh for defep-
4 dant. .A.. t. ...
a. Ex Of james McDaniels VS. Thos Nc
Daniels This was the noted Wlll case, The
court below decided that the instrument in
writing purportng TO be the last will and tes-
lament Of james Med inieis was not his will
\ The case was argued by Daniel Roberts for
the plaintiff, and E j Phelps for the defend
ant, in clear, labored and mastery manner,
Oh both sides. Seldom has the court heard
{ 60 learned and eloquent arguments, and both
gentlemen have done themselves great cred
1 it. Theeourt took time Tor deliberation be-
Is fre deciding it. oGIuw -..
%. Edward V Lapham VS. Stephen Kelly
ertict for plaintiff affirmed. ID E Nicho,.
4 con and e J Phelps for plaintiff; NJ II Cook
for defendant.
2S. Vim Il Smith vs. VIM Wilbur. Yer
dict for plaintiff affirmed. Pierpoint & Nicho'i
for plaintiff; NJ Ii Cook and Linsly s
Prout fer defendant. =,
"a. Chas Bradley VS. Cain & Mclean
4 Judgment for plaintiff affirmed. E Edger.
ton for plaintiff Lirs!y & Prout for defend
ant.
I a5 James Huntoon vs Jeremiah Dow
/ Judgment for plaintiff affirmed. E Fisher
4 for plaintiff d E Nicholson for defendant
Il &C. Benz Giddines vs. w Shumway. Jude
Beaman for plaintiff; S Harms and E Ed
perton for defendant.
~. Daniel Packer vs. II Button. Yer
II xct for plaintiff affirmed. , Nicholson
aal d Roberts for plaintiff; II Button,
L Edgerton and E Phelps for defendant.
Z aS. d A Van AIMEE VS. Jackson & Keteh
7 am. judgment for Trustee affirmed.
Il Jsae and Linsly & Prout for plaintiff; +
tEdgerton for defendant.
i 20. John Fuller We John D Boswell. Yer
DICT for plaintiff affirmed. III Smith ant
q e Edgerton for plaintiff; S Fulam for de
iendant.
q 50. Pierce & Stearns rs II q Perkins,
4 This case was heard but not decided.
q Edgerton for plaintiff; John Prout for de-
fendsnt.
81. Town Of Poultney vs. Town Of Sand
gate. Judgment for plaintiff affirmed. j Il
4 Beaman and L Edserson for plaintiff; A L
a Miner for defendant.
Ss David Kelly VS. L ID Pember. Judc-
4nsnt for plaintiff reversed and jsornaen'
b for defendant. Z Il Ihran for plaintIG