Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1874-01-09

HON. JAMES BARRETT, Pie .d.n Jui
Uov. uoYr II. WHFrLTe.
Hos. tlgMIa T.. Rover. \ ..a-c II--i .ft..
Hos. Tisprm ?. REDiUtp.
WEnNFsp.}, Jan. =, l~sl.
The January Term Of the supreme Cont
was opened Yesterday morning at hall past
ten O'Clock. with prayer 10y Rev j. X. Con
verse.
The docket va. called and of the twenty
eight cases on the calendar, twenty Were
marked for a hearing. The first case heard
was that ofJohn Ciarv v. Patrick MeG!ynn.
This wa an action oI trespass on the free
hold. exceptions from the County Court
Two points arc involved in th7 case. The
FIST is that Of boundary. the course and
distances in plaintiff deed, calling for one
/ line. and the original measurement upon the
ground establishing another. The plalntih
deed contained no reference to such meas
urement The Jury found the line claimed
! BIZ defendant and indicated by the mea sure
ment e. ie the line actually established
/ when the 1laintitf farm wa run out TO he
the ,rue line, and the que ton To- he decided
I is which line hail control. The second
/ point Is whether the plaintiff a. entitled 10
| full ca7te under the statute. MeSzrs- 1. t.
| Wilbur and H. Ballard for plaintiff; \. {.
| Dixon and Z. 4. Start for defendant.
! The next case heard was that OF LcWl
! 0zier and wife V. Town of Hinesburgh.
/ This was an action IN case to recover Tor an
! injury alleged to have been sustained hy the
! female plaintiff ny reason ct the m uth
cheney Of 4 highway IN the town OF liines
! burgh The suit ha been pending SINCE the
summer of lS6-, and has heen tried by
Jury three =eyCral times. The first time the
Jury disagreed the second time they return
"a verdict for the plaintiff Tor ! goo,
L.. .. ArrAr ~
/ Court va, reversed on the ground OF erro-
neous railing of thepresidins Judge. ~ the
third iury trial the verdict was rendered for
| the psinritfr Cor 81 600. and il comes 10
! this coust on exceptions TO the charge OF
| the oour; upon the question of lamages, and
! also IN rcspes, to the liability Of the town to
| keep tie highway in repair at the place
( where the accident happened Since the
! last jury trial The female plaintiff has died.
| Messrs. IL. Ballard and y. Roberts for the
! plaintiff. f. i. Hard for defendant.
Beauchamp vs.. Lodnc was next heard.
This wa, IN action for SANDER, commenced
, in the Cry Court and comes into this conrt
on exceptions taken by defendant 20 the
rulings and decision of the court below
Three QUESTION are involved in this case.
First. that 1t appearing on the trial tina
the slanderou9 words We're spoken in French,
but only set ont in English in the declara
ton. was the plaintiff entitled to a iudg
ment notwithstanding such variance
SecaRd. the question of variance not ap-
pearing n the exceptions to have been
raised and passed upon in the court below
can the defendant avail himself Of such
variance in this court Ihird, whether in
an action Of SANDER the plaintiff is en-
titled to recover full costs. x. ii. Start for
plaintiff; ". q. Shaw for defendant.
The case of Russell ]. Morse rs. c. c. W
Larkin ct as, which was next argued. in
volvcd a question of demurrer to the non
ioinder of what were claimed 10 be necessary
partiee t. petition of foreclosure. G. "
kennedy and u. Roberts for plaintiff
Hon. Z. Dillingham; for defendant
The Gaze Of Harlow Sanders vs. the Town
| Of Bolton was commenced shortly before
the adjournment for the day, and will be
I concluded this morning. This is action to
/ recover town bounty claimed to be due
the plaintiff under "a vote of the town
passed Pee. :, 1868. 10 pay bounties to all
| who shO uid enlist to the credit of the town
on their quota before January ;, 1864. II
is one of three cases all standing upon the
.imilar questions THAT have been tried il
this county four times rs jury. followed by
faHr hearings in the Supreme Court. The
aain defence is that the plaintiff did moi
briog himself within the terms of the vote
an his mastering in and application on tbs