Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1875-01-08
Supreme COurt.-January Term.
n.'i 10 DdiAAeEi ifVsluiu-
Hon. HoYT ii. WHEELER,
Hon. HOMER Z. RoYcE, Associate Justices
Hon. TIMOTHY p REpFIELp,1

, removed by one Brown to his own plac,
After using the sleigh more or less durin
the winter Brown disappeared and has NJ
since been heard of. The sleigh was subs,
quently claimed and sold by defendants on a
agreement with Brown. as security for
balance due them from Brown on a stor
account. 1t comes to this court on excer
tons taken by the plaintiff to the rulings {
the court below, which excluded eyidenc
relating to Brown s admissions in recar
to Plaintiffs property IN the sleigh, whic
We not made IN presence OF defendant,
an also the refusal of the court to charg
THAI even if the jury find the plaintiff mad
the statements set up by the defendants 4
to the sale that is not evidence of title il
either the defendants or Brown, but tina
all plaintiffs statements as to the sale a
the sleigh to Brown must be treated a
evidence in chief as to his ownership
and they must.fnd thelfact whether Brow
had acquired p title before his transfer t,
the defendants. c. j. Alger, attorney fol
the plaintiff; Messrs. j. ". Russell ant
Henry Ballard for defendants.
shortly before noon the case of Lev
Underwood Us. L. A. Birchard and John B
Page, was begun. This was an actor
brought 10 recover for breach of covenant
contained in lease given by defendant.
who were trustees under the Fad MORTGAGE
OF the Rutland and Burlington Railroad
The premises named were at the time in
possession of the firm of Van Sicklen 4
walker OF this city under somearrangemeni
made with former trustee under the same
mortgage. This firm refused to give the
| plaintiff possession. The defendants made
no effort to deliver possession to the plair-
IN ana The iirm subsequently continued
how
lease from the trustees Of the Isl mortga no
oi sad railroad. The plaintiff cairr ed
10 recover IN his action the diff sr-
cnce between the stipulated RENT
IN this lease and the actual worth o.! the
I rental during the term OF his lease. On the
hearing before the referee, the plaintiff was
held entitled ID recover $500. a. Damages.
with interest after May lst, $50. the neriod
/ oil the termination OF this lease The referee
/ excluded evidence tending 10 show that the
/ pldintih NaS the attorney of the defendants.
/ "ho CLAIMED TO contro. tho premises. and
/ that the lease IN question was executed for
/ the purpose Of simply securing increased
[ rent for them. In the exceptions the only
/ question presented was whether the plain
TN could recover at all The plaintiff
claiming tha- lie was kept out of Possession
| by the defendants or those holding under
them Ia violation OF their covenants. the
oXI res covenant being that the lessee and
ms assigns should occupy without let or
hlndrancc and under the statute the lessee
coul1 not get possession except by action.
and could not be compelled t. take an
ass eminent OF law suit in lieu Of the
premises leased. Levi Underwood pro- 50 4.
Daniel Roberts for defendants.
State vs.. II H. Reynolds was the next
/ "a ny .f..-
section 10, OF the liquor law, and comes 70
tuis Court on exceptions taken by the res
pendent to the suihciency OF the complaint
the principal OF which are that it Ola not
>et icrih the tnd Of intoxicating liquor
Kept anu therefore the sverment 'intoxi-
catlng iI4uor was only an opinion Of the
pleader, and that the fact that the liquor
was iuinisnet at place OF public resort
should also have been more definitely al
eged- X L. Start Tor the respondent Il.
+. i. Hewitt, States Attorney. ior the
state.
lac hearing OF the case Of T. ". Brownel
ap T., -. j. L. Ialcott. ap &C.. was com
menced AZ four clock. and occupied the
reminder OF the afternoon. THIS was an
acton OF trOyer for a wagon. Ii was tried
by jury at the last April Term, verdict Tor
the defendant. The principal grounds Of
the plaintiff 5 exceptions were that the de-
iendant's evidence did not tend to show
That the sale was induced by any durc>s in
law, and thar the court declined 10 charge
that such matters Of defence cannot be ct
up as a lar TO the action under the facts in
ihe ease, that o. justify the finding Of their
verdict upon the plea Of duress they must
be satisfied that the plaintiff in suing ont
nlS WIZ was actuatcd by malice or want
~ probable cause, and that both such quc--
ti1L- should hc considered Independently.
Mes~rs. T.. +. Brownell. K. F. b. Hewitt
ana j. H. Start for plaintiff II. Ballard
Ari J. T. LlWrcnce for defendant
IuvRsDAr, Jan :.
The hearing in the case Of Brownc.i y
Iaitott was concluded Yesterday uornin-
The next in order was state -, Jams.
he.ly, AZ :. This was complaint upq.r
section lo OF the liquor law. and comes Z,
tuls court On exceptions as u the suifeicncv
ol the complaint Inasmucn a. among other
things u WAS not alleged in the cYipp.a ir-
upon what the respondent bccar4e intsyl-
Gated and that also the record WIS fatally
detective i. II. Start, attorney far the
respondent, state, Attorney HeW:;. t.r the
S:ita.
4. W. AlEcr, apt. vs.. \. y. R9odap's,.
lhl- Was an action OF general a.~rmp-lt and
WAS h7'u-a % recover upon Wt.tten con-
tract. Exceptions were taken Lv defendant
% THIS court on the following grounds
Ihat Parot testimony l. inadmis.ib.c -
Yet} the terms u "a ,rr!pcr contract: tha,
the constitution oi slch contract a. (, De
passed upon by the cour; and 10. hv the
jury That tie court should have construed
IAr contrac, as commencing upon the date
III 'he instrument ana that the court should
20 gu d. sr H sHs.f
foreclosure rs the MORTGAGE, e.. iu-titut-
in- Proceedings e foreclosure. obtaining 3,
decree and waiting until the equity of r,-
demption expires. : II. Davis and r. !
Dcayltt. attorneys for plaintiff: II Ballard
and II. ;. Peck, attorneys for defendant
Roscoe ). Fuller by his next friend w.
ROilm Smith. This was an action of a.lgi.r
4usrcla. Upon the tIial OF thesuit it appeared
taht SUM hau been previously brought by
det't against pl # and judgment rendered
the detcndcnt being an infant ami no guard
ian al Hilu appointed The father was
notified o. the ponIclc, of the SUR. He
appeared AMI assisted his -1n in his de-
fence. NJ appeal was taken. The present
suit rs brought by the father. Exceptions
were taken u tho ruling ct the court below,
that the appearance and assistance of the
father a. natural guardian was sufficient
without any formal appointment by the
court. II. Ballard attorney for the plaintiff.
{. ;. Palmer and /. +. Wilbur. attorneys
for defendant
Russell Il WaShburn ants y d
opalter ap'cc. This was An action of zen
cral aSsumpsit to recover on promissory
note given by the defendant and the salt
was brought IN the name OF the plaintiff. 10
whom the note had been sent for collection
they having no other interest in the note.
Exceptions were taken, to the rulin- oil
the county court that the taking Of note
for prc-existing debt was not taking il
Tor value received in the law merchant II.
Ballard and j. W. Russell for plaintiffs: 4
v Spaulding for defendant.
;. i. Hale ap &C IS. p Foley and trustees
apt. This was an action of assump.it The
question raised by the exceptions to this
court was IN regard to the holding the
trustee. One Nevins was owing defendant
SO, As the difference in value between
horses they had exchanged. This sum was
afterwards paid 10 Deputy Sheriff MacOm-
Der to satisfy writ which Foley placed in
the officers hands TO serve. Neyins at the
same time rendered the officer thirty cents
interest which he al first declined to receive
hut finally did So Before Macombor had
paid the sum collected to the attorney To
whom the claim was assigned he was srus-
teed by the plaintiff and the point is as to
hls liability as trustee. C. 5 Palmer for
plaintiff; y. Y. Spaulding and l.. F.
Wilbur for defendant.
Hodges ". Merriam eli ais, a chancery
case Is now beng heard.
WASHINGTON NEWS.
GEN. SHERIDAN oS TIE SITUATION IN THE
SOUTH.