Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1875-10-08
Chit,enden County Ceart.-septenber Term.
Hon. JONI PrsRPorNr. Presiding Judge.
Hon. Nathaniel Parker, Assistant
Hon. A. B. Halbert. : Judges.

Chittenden County ConrS.-septemper Ierm'
Hon. JONI PnRPoINr. Presiding Judge.
Hon. Nathaniel Parker, Assistan.
Hon. A. B. Halbert. Judges.
THURSDAY, Sept. 30, 1875.
The case of Prentiss VS.. Powell was given
to the jury at $50 this morning. Two
hours later they returned verdict for
S47 &c for the plaintiff.
State VS.. William L. Strong is now on
trial. This is an indictment for maintain
ing a nuisance, being the property located
on the east side Of the square. known as
Strong's building. The government claim
that this is an encroachment upon the
square as originally laid out, and that Mr..
Strong has never acquired any legal title 20
it. The respondent claims that IN 1908 the
Legislature passed an act authorizing the
selectmen of Burlington to convey most OF
the land now occupied BY Strong's building
| to Lyman King, the Consideration of the
conveyance to the county by King of the
lot on which the jail stands; that the con-
veyances were made accordingly in 1909 :;
that the county has ever since occupied the
| jail lot. and King and his grantors through
whom Strong claims to have occupied the
| Strong property. As to the residue of the
property. being that covered BY the Whee-
loy< and Griffin store, the respondent claims
that il was leased perpetually by the Sc
lectmen of Burlington to Henry Thomas
in 1925, and has been ever since occupied
by Thomas and Strong. who bought of
Thomas in 1895, and this long possession is
conclusive of the title.
1t appearing at the beginning OF the trial
that the case is prosecuted by counsel en-
ployed by the city. an objection was raised
by respondents counsel to the right of the
city to appear in State prosecution.
TIE court on request OF the States Attor-
D. assigned them to act as counsel.
: .ates Attorney. r. P. u. Hewitt, City
Attorney, L. L. Lawrence and Daniel Rob
erts. for the State VIM. G. Shaw, and E.
Phelps for respondent.
FRIDAY AFTERNOON.
The testimony in the case of State vs.. W.
l.. Strong, was closed at noon. The argu-
ments of counsel will probably occupy the
remainder of the day.
SATURDAY, Oct. ,
The entire afternoon and evening yester-
day were occupied with the arguments of
counsel upon the legal points involved in
the case of State VS. Strong, Messrs L. l..
Lawrence and Daniel Roberts, represent
ing the State Wm. G. Shaw and Z. j.
Phelps the respondent. The court this
morning will indicate his views upon the
legal questions presented. when the case
will probably be argued to the jury.
SATURDAY AFTERNOON.
The opinion Of the court, in the case of
State VS. Strong was delivered at the open
ing of the court, this morning. L. sns-
tanned the claim of the respondent in the
possession of the premises in question on
the ground of long continued possession.
In accordance with the instructions of
the court. therefore, the jurors returned
verdict of not gaaAy.
The case OF Charles W. A,herton vs. Ar
thur F. Burdick was then commenced. This
is ar action of assault and battery. wherein
the plaintiff claims $1,000 damages for be-
ing expelled by the defendant from house
which he claimed the right to occupy
MesSrs. Henry Ballard. l.. L. lawrence and
A. v Spaulding for plaintiff ; A. c. Dixon,
E. R. Hard and W. L. Burnsp for defendant.
4, noon recess was taken till Monday
morning at 10 o'clock.
MONDAY. October 1.
The day has been taken up with the ties
timony in the case Of Athesion Va, Burdick.
1t will probably occupy the whole of the
day tomorrow.
TUESDAY. Oct. jlh.
The afternoon will probably DO occupied I
with the testimony in the case Of Anterior /
vs.. Bardick.
WEDNESDAY,, October ..
The testimony in Anterior vs.. Burdick /
will probably not be concluded before noon.
The remainder of the day will he taken up
with arguments OF counsel
THURSDAY, Oct. :.
On the conclusion OF the evidence and |
argument of the counsel GA the questions OF |
law, the cour. held that the defendant. /
Burdick, would not be liable for expelling /
the plaintiff, Atherion. from the premises
unless he used more force than was nccessl- /
~ in the act OF expulsion. and that tie 1
only question for the jury was whether the /
defendant used unnecessary force in ejecting |
the plaintiff. On this question the case |
was argued to the jury. Mr.. Sparkling I
made the argument for the plaintiff, on the |
conclusion OF which deien1ant's counsel /
declined to argue the case. The charge Oi
the court was then given. Shortly after tie 1
jury returned a verdict Of not guilty.
The next cause for trial - Nehemiah |
Pr0uiy ". Smith n Peass-was then COM
nenced. This was an action of essump,it |
TO recover the difference of $50 agreed to be |
paid on an exchange of wagons. Mes-rs- |
L. f Wilbur and II. Ballard for plaintiff
a. c Dixon and +. +. Hard for defend
ant