The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1875-12-31
Railroad Hearing at St. Adams.

The hearing on the motion of the Rut
railroad company to recover the road OF
get security for the rent, commenced or
Thursday, at st. Albans, before Chancel
lor Homer Il. Royce. The reading Of the
papers, which are very volumlnous, LASTED
oil the morning and until four o'clock
after recess for dinner.
Ex-Gov. Page and Messrs. Jacob Ed.
wards of Boston, and j. w. Hickok Of
Burlington, directors of the Rutland road,
we're present, and likewise the Messrs.
Smith and Poland, directors of the Cen
trail.
The counsel for tho Rutland were Sena-
tor Edmunds, Hon. John Prout, Hon.
Daniel Roberts and Col. A. f. Walker ;
for the Central Messrs. Luke p. Poland,
Il. T. Fifleld and Hon. Levi Underwood ;
for the Vermont and Canada, Hon. G. w.
Willard.
When the reading of the main answer
was concluded Mr.. Edmunds objected to
the reception and reading of the speech of
one Geo. B. Chase, at a public meeting,
which was attached to the defendants
answer as an exhibit. He considered it ir-
relevant, out of place, and put in here for
the purpose of prejudicing Mr.. Page.
Judge Poland insisted that they had a
right to make it part of their answer, but
they should have no occasion to read it on
this hearing, hence he did not consider the
objection timely or tenable.
The chancellor said the proper time to
object would be when they offer the ex-
hibit in court.
Judge Poland then read the answer of
the Central Vermont railroad company.
Mr.. Fifield offered TO read the answer
of Messrs. Emery Perkins and Howe.
MIR. Edmunds objected to 1t, on the
ground that those gentlemen are not prop.
erly defendants. He merely wished to
have the objection noted IN order that the
sheep might be separated from the goats,
some day.
Mr.. Underwood Who are those goats
Laughter
The reading then proceeded, and was
not flushed until about 4 o'clock.
Mr.. Edmunds offered the affidavit of
Gov. Page in reply to those portions of the
answers which are not responsive to the
petition but set up croso claims.
Judge Poland objected to lis reception
., At th., hos Co
weeks ago.
Mr.. Edmunds said that the situation of
the case is now different from then. He
went on to state the terms OF the lease,
and especially that provision in regard to
rescisiou for breach of condition, and then
insisted that an affidavit is admissible to
show that the claim set up by the other
party, not in denial of the petition, but
setting up new ground, is admissible. He
said that there is no authority anywhere
for denying to the petitioner the right 10
meet by affidavit the new and extraneous
matter set up in the answer, and which the
petitioner could not anticipate.
The chancellor asked if the other side
could reply by affidavit.
Mr.. Edmunds thought not, because the
aim is only to put the matter in opposition.
The chancellor said he could see no distinc
ton between the situation now aud that at
the former hearing when affidavits were re-
fused. He therefore ruled the affidavit not
admissible.
Mr.. Edmunds then offered to read the
traverses to the answers, and tie same not
being objected to, he read the several re-
plcations, they being only brief and for
NAL papers, denying the allegations in the
answer.
Stacks of law books were then brought
in, and Judge Prout proceeded TO address
the court in support of the motion, appear
ances indicating that the arguments will be
long and not concluded before some time
EriIau