Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1873-01-10
Supreme Court..January Term.
HON. HOYT II. WHEELER, Presiding Judge.
# #$s $ #ssSs I 49, ss.5

H HOs TmOIgI R REDFrrIO Assistants.
TUESDAY, Jan. :, 1873.
| The January Term of the Supreme Court
was opened at halfpast ten O'Clock this
morning, with prayer by Rev NJ. A. Wilcox.
pastor Of the Baptist church in this city.
| The Docket was called and applications for
a continuance in the cases OF John Clary vs.
Patrick McGlynn, and Lewis 0zier and wife
VS. Town of Hinesburgh were heard and
subsequently granted.
Grace Edgcomb ct ais vs. City of Burling-
ton was the first case heard. This was a
bill brought on behalf of the orators for the
purpose of preventing the defendant from
taking about eight acres of the orators land
adjoining the Green Mount Cemetery on
the north, for the purpose of charging the
cemetery The orators claimed that the
provisions of the general statutes relative
to the sequestration of private property
for public purposes had not been complied
with in many respects that the defen-
dant, after proceeding 50 far as to con-
denim the land for burial purposes,
failed to tender or pay the orator
the appraised value of the land Isl ,5lS)
with. the time prescribed by the statute
and 20 that the defendant had no right to
take the land for the ostensibe purpose of
a burying ground and at the same time
make it the property Of private corpora
ton, to be controlled by them instead of by
the city. Messrs l.. B. Englesby and F.
Dillingham; for orators; X. 5. Taft and +.
j. Phelps for defendant.
The arguments were concluded at three
o'clock this afternoon.
Daniel B. Meigs vs.. Smith, Brainerd 4
Clark was then commenced. This was an
action of trespass on the case for an injury
to the plaintiff schooner, resulting from.a
collision with the draw-bridge in Lake
Champlain near ROuses Point, which bridge
at the time of the accident was in the pos
session and mana cement ofthe defendants.
At the trial of the case at the last Septem-
Der term, the plaintiff obtained verdict
for 81 $50 damages. The case comes to this
court on exceptions by the defendants to
the decision of the court as TO the admisSa-
bility of certain evidence, and also the
error of the court, particularly in charg-
ing the jury on the question of damages;
that if the injury resulted from the gross neg
ligence of the defendants agents the plain
tiff would be entitled 10 recover, over and
above his actual pecuniary loss, the trouble,
time and expense he had been put to in the
prosecution of the suit Messrs. l.. L. Law
renee and &. c. Noble for defendants; K. II.
Start and E. r. Hard for plaintiff.
The concluding argument on the part Of
the plaintiff by Mr. Hard, will occupy the
attention of the court portion of this
forenoon
WEDNESDAY, Jan. 1872.
The closing argument in the case Of
Meigs vs.. Smith ct ais was finished at half
past ten O'Clock this morning
The next case heard was that of Louis
Lequin vs. c. NJ Peterson. This was an
action of general assumpsit for money had
and received. brought 10 recover certain
monies paid to defendant for certain ar
ticles which We're purchased of defendant
by plaintiff S MINOR son. Atthe trial before
the City Court, the court found that the
articles SO purchased were not necessarie-.
that the legal interest in the money paid
was in the plaintiff, and that he could
therefore maintain an action IN his own
name. Judgement was thereup0n rendered
for the plaintiff 10 recover the amount in
question The case comes To the court on
the ground that there was no prirHy Of c01-
tract between the parties: that the deien-
dant did not receive the money in question
to the use Of the plaintiff. that there was
no demand by the plaintiff before suit
that the money was of the ordinary cur
rency of the country. and therefore cannot
be followed; that il was received in good
faith that it came lawfully into the hands
Of the defendant in the ordinary course of
business that the plaintiff (the tutherl
could not rescind the contract on the ground
of infancy Of the son, as the plea Of infancy
could only be taken advantage Of by the in
FAINT himself H. II Ialcott for plaintiff;
r. H. Start for defendant.
Shortly before the noon recess the case oi
William ". Wright vs. Estate of CaS-ius
p Williams was taken mp. This was an
action brought o. rrclVer claim against
the defendant estate Of pr1miSs0ry note
for ! 500. The claim ysa- allowed By the
commissioners and the estate appealed to
the county court. In that court the plain
tiff filed "a motion under an act Of Congress.
to remove the case % the | :. Circuit
Court. he being citizen Of the State of
New York. The county court ordered the
cause removed. and To this decision the de-
PENDANT excepted. The defendant claimed
that the action is NOT a SWf within the
meaning of the act of Congress, and there
fore i not removable. The plaintiff claims
that the case was properly removed. and
that the decision of the county court ia
removing it cannot De revised here. That
the [ ;. Circuit Court D, exclusive iudgeoi
it, own jurisdiction, and il the case was inn
properly removed an application must he
made there 10 remand it.
-
MARGARET Kell.t.. Iarvy Tomlin.5n was
the Iasf ease heard This was an action of
General assumpsit brought {, recover the
balance of WAGE for services Of plaintiff
while in the employment of defendant. 1t
comes TO this court ON exceptions taken by
defendant TO the referee report upon which
the county court rendered Judgment for the
plaintiff for the amount 'iaiIned. defendant
claiming that the facts, us found ~ the
referee, were sufficient TO warrant her re-
eoyyery OF the amount IN qnesil.9n- .. -
+. brow eA ior pIaih'lh ana - H.
DAYS i1r defendant. ....,,
Inc nearing IN me remaISs 'aH7 WILL
pronaoiy pe eohciuaed tomorrow
OVER TIE LAkE.-J. H. NJiIt. lately
connected WIN the custom liol>e I'll t"'
.H