Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1875-04-09
chIllendcn County courl...lprn Term.

Hos. Joux PIERroiNT, Presiding Judge.
Hon. Nathaniel Parker, Assistant
Hon. \. l.. llalbert, judges.
TUESDAY. April t.. $50.
The regular April term of the Chlttenden
County Court was opened at 10 30 o clock
this morning. with prayer by Rev. G. Il.
Stafford, pastor of the Third COngre gational
CHURCH in this city.
Proclamation was made for petit jurors.
His Honor then briefly cautioned the petit
Juror, in regard TO either listening 10 OF en-
gaging in any conversation about any ease
which Is to be tried at this term. Parties
to these cases, whether unintentionaliy or
not. would naturally hold such converse
ton with each other, and 1t was their duty
a. Jurors to have their minds entirely un-
preiudiced in respect to such cases 50 that
they would be able to discharge their du-
ties impartially, otherwise the vcrlict~
would be set aside by the Court.
The remainder 1.-THE morning session was
taken up with hearings on motions for Il
continuance of several cases.
On motion Of Hon. Daniel Roberts.
Messrs. Seneca llazelton and George +.
Marsh, both of this city, were admitted to
the bar.
WEDNESDAY. April :. $50.
=
Yesterday afternoon, and occupied the re
mainder OF the day. This was an action of
a-sumpsit brought by +. b. Carlton vs.
/ Richard G.. kimblll. for 500, the alleged
! value of certain services claimed to have
| been rendered to the defendant by the plain
/ TIFF in procuring the sale of certain real es-
tate belonging TO tine defendant. Plea gen
eral issue and payment in Offset. Me>srs
| L. F. Wilbur and + K. Hard for plaintiff
! A. c. Whittcmore and II. Billiard for de-
lendani
THURSDAY, April ;.
The closing argument of Hon +. r. Hard
in behalf OF the plaintiff. in the case of
Carleton IS. kimball occupied the first hour
of yesterday mornings session. After a
brief charge from the court, the Jury took
the case. la half an hour they brought in a
verdict in favor of the defendant.
The case OF AFRO b. Ashley vs.. Guy {.
Noble and \. q. Stafford was next heard.
Th, was an action on a replevin bond and
was brought in April. 1872. The defend
ants claimed first. That George Ashley,
one of the appraisers, at the time of APP
praislng the property replevied, in order
that the amount of the bond could be de
termined was an interested party, inasmuch
as he was an owner of the claim upon which
the property was taken on execution and
therefore legally disabled under the statute
from acting as appraiser. Second, That all
the conditions of the bond have been perform
ed in accordance with the judgment of the
Supreme Court on the original replevIu suit,
with the exception of the return of thirty
four gross of spring water bottles and two
hogs. And that the property thus excepted
not having been returned, the defendants in
the replevin suit applied to the Supreme
Court at the January Term, 1873, for a
writ of reprisal. This was subsequent to the
bringing of this action on the bond. Thu:
writ of reprisal was granted by the Supreme
Court ut the January term. 1874, and the
amount of 1886 and costs. the value OF the
property not returned, was paid. which
operated a. Il full satisfaction of the bond
The Court having ruled pro forna, that tn,
points claimed by defendants were legally
insufficient. directed verdict for the plain
tiff for 0l damages and costs. to which de.
PENDANTS excepted, and the case will be car
, red up to the Supreme Court. l.. l.. Law
renee. H. B. Smith and d. Roberts for the
plaintiff. H. Ballard and Whitsemore.
Wheeler for defendants.
George GOodnow 4 Co. W.. Samuel Tylel
| was next tried This was an action of as
sumpsit for liquors sold and delivered to thu
! defendant When the plaintiffs had resteC
their case counsel for defendant asked tn,
Court to direct verdict for the defendan
! on the ground that it might be legally pre-
sumed that the liquor in question was in
! toxicating in its character. and being 81
, the plaintiffs could not recover under tn
I statute unless they had proved that tn
sale came within the exceptions provide'
Tor in the statute. viz, that the sale wa
, either made to an agent appointed
e for the sale OF intoxicating liquor. or tina
it was sold in original packages as import
ed. The court held that the plaintiffs ties