Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1869-04-16
BURLINGTON
Chit;enden County tourty.

Chitenden County tOGrty.
Hon. JoEy PIERPoINr, Presiding J,tige
Hos. Russell j. MoEsE, assl J.doss
FRIDAY, April o.
The testimony in the case of Morse rs Town
Of RichmoLd viii lie concluded to-day, and the
case given to the jury tomorrow probably
SATURDAY, april TO-
The arguments in the case Of Morse vs Town
| Of Richmond were concluded this noon. The
/ court then excused the jury until Monday morn
| ing at ten O'Clock, when he viii charge them on
/ the case.
The next case for trial is that Of Charles X.
| Whitney rs Town Of Essex. This is case for
+ damages for injury to the plaintiff by reason Of
a defective highway. The accident for which
/ damages are claimed happened IN the village Of
Essex in the fall Of 1868. The case has been
once tried by jury at the September Term Of
Chittenden Co. Court in 1864 and has been sent
back for a new trial upon the ground Of an er-
roncous charge at the previous trial.
At the opening Of the Court this afternoon the
following prisoners were arraigned and plead
not guilty.
Joseph Lapiante, two indictments, one for
burglary and one for horse stealing. Also one
information .or breaking Jail
Richard Newton indicted for larceny.
john Rayey indicted for rape.
Henry Welcome, indicted for murder.
The Court then adjourned till Monday morn
ing at 10 O'Clock.
MONDAY, April Z.
The court opened at ten O'Clock according to
adjournment, but were unable to proceed to bust
ness ill an hour later III consequence Of the
absence u some Of the jurymen. The remain
ing hour Of the forenoon was occupied by the
cour, with It's charge 70 the jury in the case Of
Morse rs. Town OF Richmond. IN which the
testimony in tine case was briefly reviewed, and
the several points Of law applicable 10 the ease
fully and clearly laid down. In its iustruc-
tons the court said that it was incumbent on
the plaintiff in order to maintain his action to
show LIST, That the damages he had sustained
were caused ~ the highway, in the vicinity Of
the accident, being out # repair or DISTRACTED,
and n0t ia any respect the result Of the conduct
or negligence Of the person who was driving
f,r him; n That, he hal notified the town
within tie appointed time Thirty days. Of his
intention 10 prosecute his claim against it "a
That the town. through its officers. had sufficient
and reasonable notice Of the existence Of the
defect W obstruction in the highway, 50 that
they -h luid have repaired or removed il. And
that i the plaintiff failed in any Of these par
tcIllrs he loses bis right of recovery. ON the
frs point Il was TO he decided by the Jury
whether the place occupied by the bales Of
burned hay, wls within the limits Of the high /.
way -w4s the land under the exclusive con- /
,fo.of the railroad company. If the hitter, the /.
towns liability ceased NJ once
The evidence showed that the town had for /
number Of years past assumed the control and .
use of that portion Of The Old turnpike not .
ciaiuel by tie railroad company, and adopted .
IL as highway. and therefore it was under OBJ /
LEGATION 90 Keep it in repair. The only question .
was, was the spot, on which the bales of hay .
were placed within the limits Of this highway /.
and If So, were they If q character o. Obstruct .
Che roadway. This was for the jury TO say, the .
presumption being that the width Of the road /.
whose limits were not fixed by side fences. was /
the same as that market ont on either side Of T.
the open or uufeucel portion Of the highway.
The part Of the road where the accident occur- /
red was generally used by the public ~ a
means Of access 20 the depot Of the railroad I
company and for the deposit Of certain kinds Of
property 90 be taken away on the highway. ]
There was 20 proof that the spot was embraced .
I'm che survey Of the railroad. IF, therefore, the
evidence showed that the bales Of hay were
within the highway, the question arises, dill they
lie in such near pr1x NIFTY to the Travelled track .
a- Co be likely ~ s0 brighten the horse as 90 f
cause tie injuries for which damages were
claimed. The court further instructed the Jury .
t-at rhe evidence tended 10 show that the It. +
feet 10 the highway hal been brought TO the .
attention Of one u the selecrmen Of the town .
eir.v enough 20 afford him a reasl nable time In .
which Co remove the Instructions, aniill-1 that .
the plaintiff hal afterwards given 90 the town .
vha, would be constituted 20 be legal u-+ice f .
Ifs intention so sue for damages.
In regard % the amount Of damages which /
the plaintiff could recover, if the jury were Of /
the opinion that he was entitled % any. the .
court said that the plaintiff was only entitled 20
tle value # the services Of his wife which had .
been or would he lost to him by reason Of the .
lcc- lent, and In deciding this they should only
inquire how far had her usefulness been i'm /
paired By the accident And Is for the amount
Of damage 90 the horse, wagon. harness, &c.
they could estimate it as to them seemed right.
TUzsDir, April 13.
0a the conclusion Of the plaintiffs evidence.
the counsel for the defendant novel that a YER
diet be directed for the defendant. The court,
after hearing co1nse, on both sides, ruled that,
rs The plaintiff evidence in the case presented
substantially the same state Of facts. which
were proved az tie former trial, when the Su-
rre1le court 10 the November Term in 1-fj le-
,ideI '' thar town having travelled track
sufficiently wide and suitable for all purposes Of
travel, and in repair, is not liable for INJURIES
received Ia conseq uence Of a defective foot path
ia the highway fifteen or twenty feet from the
travelled track, which the town had never work
Ell Up repaired though the public foot travel has
-ls-eI over il tor over thirty years. he should
lire-t The jury 90 return verdict for the de-
-niaEt which was accordingly done through .
IRA Russell. their foreman. To this ruling the
plaintiffs counsel took exceptions
The case If David Regain rs Levi Under
1Qi was then commenced. This Is an action
Il general assumpsit for services in removing
quantity OF wood for defendant
The case was given TO the jury about four
clock this afternoon. who shortly after return
"a a verdict in favor Of the plaintiff for SG0.2j.
ht full amount Of his claim
II. Ballard and F. R. Hard for plaintiff; r II.
start AMI +. J Phelps for defendant
The case Of Daniel sullivan and wife rs. Phil
b Smith S Trustee Thomas LouerEan) was
then taken up. This is an acton Of lssJImrsit
lr ~--n.Nl, claimed 20 have been loaned by the
'.1inrf wife 90 the defendant, in the fan of
b Defence claimed that both parties in tie
-lse were trausactin- business as partners, and
nat the money advanced by Mrs Sullivan was
p the partnership use
Ne-,rs. lawrence s. Buruap and E. r Ha~I
the plaintiff, and J. J. NI0nahan and H. Bal
All Tor the defendant The plaintiff had con-
lIlai LIS testimony when the Court adjourned
1r the lay.
WEDNESDAY, April Il.
sullivan and wife rs. Smith and Trustee was
ven 90 the jury at half past two O'Clock this
The jury, after being out a short
.me returned a verdict in favor Of the plaintiff
1r --13 - damages and costs.
The case Of William Crouan Us. G.. Austin
-as then begun. This is an action Of general
-sumpsit 10 recover for labor in taking care Of
le-p belonging 10 defendant and also for the
a-ue q % quantity Of hay consumed by them
uring the winter Of 1866 The case was not
iven to the jury until just as the Court ADJOURN
. for 'he day.
IT II. Talco,t and H Ballard for the plaintiff.
nd Lawrence S Burnap and R. S. Taft
ir defendant.
The Common schools.
The School Superintendents Of the several
owns in Chiyteuden County held a meeting in ,
bis city on Tuesday last, Of which the Rev. Z.