St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1871-06-30
Useless Lar SUITS.
Edi0i (uicci0aidn d:

the true criterion to Judge of the impor-
lance or necessity of the suits. l;ut such
is far from being the case. For instance,
you say one suit terminated in verdict
of one dollar Yet this suit, in impor-
lance and principle involved, was far
from being tie vcXatious and needless
one you intimate. 1t involved the right
OF the public TO Il common highway.
The plaintiff in that suit probably hon
cstly supposed he owned the land where
he placed what he called barn. The
Selectmcn OF the town OF ITar,lwick as
honestly supposed said barn intruded on
the highway, and notified the plaintiff
to remove the same. He refused 50 to
do, and tie sclcctmcn, in obedience to
the statute, removed the public nuisance,
as they deemed it. The plaintiff iclt
himself a@grievcd and sucd the select
men. by tie verdict the RIGHT of the
public 10 the highway, as the sclectm"n
commended, was established. The one
dollar verdict was the result of the Jury
finding that in removing the barn the
selcetmcn were not quite as prudent rs
they should have been. Had not the
Jury found this excess, or overlriing. no
L n,
dcrcd, and no one would have then
thought the suit notwithstanding upon
the Ground that both parties actrl hon
cstly in the premises.
In the case where the verdict was SO.
you regard rs useless. because the YER
diet WAS 81 small. But the ~uit WAS one
OF the first Importance. The statute
makes it penal for any one to transport Il
poor person from one town to another
without Il warrant OF removal, with an
intent 10 make such town char.rahlc for
the support Of such pncr person. In this
case the plaintiff town thought the dc
icniant violated the statute and brought
4 suit. The jury found de!cndm mt iii !
transport such person with the intent 81
forth. The penalty may b. irom ~ to
5000 The jury were allowed To atljN
the amount Of the penalty hy agreement
-, ,.,.;... r.r.,. -r,
III ,..,:
-,
''' ' ~ '
'''' '''''' '''''''
~ ''''' - " '''''' ~ ~ ''' va
~ 80 NAV ' ''','' . ~ '.'' I''''''' -
,
.,
,,Y
J., ,u, ,na;. -, ,, .,,, ,,,, ,.,.,,
Ian, .,,,I ,..,..
rout H.. GJt oo,r;.,cI ,uJ Lr,,,Lt -,
nit ou1,, cL,,,,o .,L, Inv forms II
Thn hov. tr.t;r.l ,I,,t fam t;r,r mn
bows had the ri.ht /, fi.h in
.he stream which made III, p,ud. and
IF ri,ht they uu,ht tn Il. aIl,wcJ In tisI,
out OF that particular pond. The conn
ty court. judge Steele presiding. ruled
oo,inst such rirht. and the rl,iuiit, r,-
covered Sl.OO, the worth of the trout ut
one particular fishing. The defendant
excepted to the ruling OF the court. and
the case passed 10 the supreme court.
This case has been twice argued before
the supreme courts, and it i understood
the court have not vet come to an aar,c-
mcnt This case involves, small as j. lis
pecuniary Importance, Il crave cnn~,;tu-
tional question, and one that las never
been before the supreme court. 1t Is
that clause in tha constitution which de-
cIarcs that the inhabitants OF this state
shall have liberty to hunt Il fowl, and in
like manner to fish, &c, and it is qurs-
ton that may well puzzle crave iudgcS.
and does. vet it is O! the utm,,t imuor-
lance to know whether citizen of tLc
state can have special property in trout
under such circumstances rs her, dr,ail-