Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1868-01-17
agreed statement of facts the court below rrr

agreed statement of facts the court below min
pro formG in favor of the plaintiff
The next case was that of Hiram PaddocL
Ahira Jones. This was an action on rror,:
sorry note. The defendant pleaded special no.
ter in bar, The plaintiff replied de irjyri,
which the defendant demurred generally. n
court sustained the demurrer and gave ind.
ment for the defendant. Exceptions were ,ll,..,
execution stayed and cause ordered to tbi. .,.-
for revision. A. C. and Henry Ballard s,- -
plaintiff, and L. B. Englesby for defendar,
The case of Edwin A. Birchard and T.L.n
Page VS.. James Cheever was the next case h.,
E. J. Phelps appearing for Levi Underb.ol
behalf Of the orators, and Vim. G. Sbaw s,s
defendant. This was bill in Chancerv f,.,
fectuating trust of certain real estate -.
county one of the orators residiD, IN p.,.
county and none of the parties in hi, a..
The question arises on a plea to the ,r.f..
the defendant claiming that the bin .BorJI
been brought in Rutland county.
Caroline C. anil Daniel 4 Y,
Hannah Maria Groot ct ais, was then -.
W. G. Shaw Eand E. J. Phelps for the -
and jeremiah French for the desenisH,- M.
was bill in chancery and comes to tbi. cy---
questions Of facts in regard to the sale O., Gov
tam premises, in the city of Burlington. nov
owned and occupied by DR.. S. ". Thaver
NosDAr, Jan. 10, 1865
The first case taken up this morning was that
of Francis Gilmore ct ais vs.. Thaddeu,
Fletcher. An appeal from the Court of Chan
Gerry. This was bill brought by the heir, If
Sophia Croteau to redeem certain lands from
mortgage executed by said Sophia and her bu.-
band Joseph Croteau. The mortgage Was fora
closed in A. D. 1856, the administrator anil said
Joseph only being made defendants The heir,
Of Sophia CrOteau now claim that they are 10,
foreclosed, not having been made parties. The
chancellor dismissed the bill with costs, from
which decree the orators appealed.
L. B. Englesby for the orators, Jereu.s5
French for the defendants.
The State VS.. B. D. Peterson was the next else
heard. This ives complaint against the resp5n-
dent for being a manufacturer Of intoxicating r
quOr. This case comes to this court on the right
Of appeal from the recorders to the COUNTY
Court in police trials Of a criminal nature
L B. Englesby for the State, VIM. G. Sh.=
for the respondent.
As the next two cases, that Of the State "a
sundry packages strong beer, B. D. Petersa
claimant and the State vs.. sundry packages IL
toxicating liquor, Tousley ct els, claimants IL
VOWED certain constitutional questions, and only
three judges present could legally try them,
they were continued to the General Term.
L. B. Englesby for the State, and VIM. C..
Shaw for the claimants.
The State vs.. Joseph Bacon was then arguel
by L. B. Englesby for the State, Il. Ballard and
R. H. Start for the respondent
This was a prosecution for violation Of the
Liquor law and it comes to this court on ezcs--
tons from the Recorders court The respoH5-
ent before the Recorder was found guilty 4,
four offences and was sentenced to three months
imprisonment in the county jail and TO pay o
fine of $50 and costs.
TUESDAY, Jan. 18th, ISIS
The first case heard this morning was that &
the city of Burlington vs.. Nelson Bacon
This case was a prosecution against the ~
pondent before the Recorder of this city for o.
structing on one occasion the side walk on Ii,
east side of Church Street in this city. The It's
pendent filed a motion to dismiss and aftervari.
a demurrer, both Of which were oyerruled. TIE
respondent was then tried, and the court pr
Jorma rendered judgment Of guilty. To 81
Of which decisions the respondent excepted, sl-
] ceptons allowed, sentence respited and the ca1s
passed. to this court
L. B. Englesby for the city, and R 5. Taft q
the respondent
The last case (No. so on the calendar, tha-
the city Of Burlington vs.. John Soragan. ~
then argued by L. B. Englesby for the city a..
Jeremiah French for the respondent. This Vas
a complaint against the defendant for a violation
Of one of the health ordinances Of this citr The
respondent filed a motion to dismiss ani ieHur-
rel generally to the comEIai both of which
were overruled by the Recorder, before whom
! the cause was tried
The defendant excepted, exceptions allowed,
and the cause ordered to this court, meAnyhl,
the sentence was respitei.
The following divorce cases we're heard
Mary E. Danforth vs.. Alonzo H. Danforth.
Sophia A. Mcclellan VS.. Lewis Mcclellan.
Jackson \. Willard vs. Adeline Millarl.
Arietta Lyon vs.. Newell Lyon.
Sylvenus Stockwen vs. Julia Ann StockEe1
Sarah J. Brown vs. Edgar W Brown
Emma J. Fraser vs.. James Fraser
Jane 5. Ray VS.. John H. Ray
james V. Page vs.. Hannah A. Page.
VIM. II. B. Graves vs.. Mary Graves.
Philomene Tebo vs.. Joseph Tebo.