Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1868-01-17
Supreme Court-- Chittenden County.


THURSDAY. Jan. 9th. 1865.
The case Of Peter St. Martin & Co, VS.. 5. P.
Thrasher ct ala commenced last evening was
concluded this morning. This case comes up to
this court on the question of the authority of one
partner to submit partnership matters to arbitra-
ton. 1t was heard before referee and a pro
forma judgment entered for the defendants in the
Court below, to which the plaintiff took excep-
tons. L. L. Lawrence and jeremiah French for
the plaintiff, E R. Hard for the defendants.
At the close Of these arguments, on the recon-
mendation of the examining committee, Peter La
Clair, Esq, Of Winooski, was admitted to prac-
tice in this court.
The case Of Roswell B. Fay vs.. VIM. D. Nun
son, which was passed yesterday, was then taken
up. This was an action on the case against the
defendant as sheriff for a neglect to keep proper
ty attached so that it could be had on executions
Exceptions by the defendant. Jeremiah French
or the plaintiff and R. 5. Taft for the defend
"a NNts-ArlA AA4N NttoN VI v'iAt-A
and c. H. Brown vs.. Z. 5. Mudgett was next
heard. This was an action to recover for neces-
saries furnished by the plaintiffs
to defendants wife while she lived separate from
her husband. Exceptions by the defendant to
Judgment entered for the plaintiffs by the court
below on the auditors report. L. F. Wilbur foI'
the plaintiffs, VI. 0. Heath for the defendant
FRIDAY, Jan. l, 1865,
After the conclusion of Browns vs.. Mudgett
yesterday afternoon the case Of the State vs., the
town of Jericho was argued by L. B. Englesby
for the State and L. F. Wilbur and E. R. Hard
for the respondent. This case came up to this
Court on demurrer to an indictment against the
town of Jericho for not building highway &C
cording to the order Of the County Court.
The next case was Edward Flannery vs.
Thomas B. Hinkson. This was an action upon
covenants in deed. 1t VISA commenced before
Justice and appealed to the County Court and
there dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Plain
tiff took exceptions, which were allowed and the
cause ordered to this Court
5. H. Davis for the appellee, Jeremiah French
for the appellant
Harrey Groot rs. Hampton S. Story was
then begun and concluded this morning. This
was an action of general assumpsit. Trial by
jury and verdict for the plaintiff, below; excep-
tons were taken by the defendant
r II Il
tiff, E. R. Hard for the appellant
The case Of Caroline Page rs. B. J. Heine-
berg was next argued by W. C. French (of
Woodstock for the plaintiff and jeremiah
French and E. j. Phelps for the defendant Thi.
was an action Of ejectment for the land accupied
by the old Central Depot in Burlington. The
plaintiff claims under levy of an execution
against the company. The defendant claims that
on the discontinuanee of the road, the depot
ground and roadway reverted to the original pro-
prietor.
The hearing in the case of James A. Shedd VS..
the Troy Boston Railroad Company was then
The plaintiff claims to recrver for
being excluded from the cars on the Western Vt
Railroad, when run by the defendants. He
ught ticket at Boston from thence to Troy,
via Rutland, defendants road. The through fare
Owl gto competition was So, while the fare to
Rutland was S6.25, and thence to Troy s3.5O.
The through ticket bought by the plaintiff was
stamped Good for this day only" The plaintiff
;ame on this ticket from Boston to Rutland and
hence returned home to Burlington subsequent
y being at Rutland he claimed to be carried
hence to Troy on the reminder Of the ticket,
which the company refused
R. 5. Taft for applicant. W. c. Dunton (of
sutand) and E. J. Phelps for defendants.
SATURDAY, Jan. II, 1867.
The first case heard this morning was that of
'wen E. Dooney, vs. John Hayes ct els, argued
y Vim. G. Shaw for the plaintiff, and Henry
'allard for the defendants. This was an action
f ejectment to recover the possession of certain
remises in the city of Burlington, at present oc-
uped by the firm of Catlin & Gordon as a lum-
er yard. The case comes to this court on an