Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1876-01-14

reasonable time, at Chicago. 8 quantity OF
cassimeres which were shipped by the plain
tiff from Burlington TO Chicago. in Sept.
ls66 Trial by referee and pro ferB.a rul-
ing by the County Court for plaintiffs. EI-
cepti0ns by defendants. Levi Underwood
for the defendants t. r. Hard for plain
tifs.
This was followed BY the case of c. ".
| c. Patee. apt. V. Orren Pelton, sp ee.
The claim OF the plaintiff IS based upon an
alleged fraud in the sale or exchange OF
some carpets which defendant exchanged
with the plaintiff. An action Of trespass
on the case was brought by the plaintiff.
Plea. general issue and trial by referee.
The case came to this Court upon eIeep-
tons by the plaintiff to the pro lorna rul-
ing Of the County Court, that the plaintiff
was entitled 10 recover, and 10 8 certificate,
that the cause OF action arose from the VIII
ful and malicious act Of defendant. After
argument f0- the defendant by II. Ballard,
the court intImsted that they did not desire
II hear from plaintiff counsel IN reply.
The next hearing was that Of Geo. W.
Curtis y Warner and Burdick. This l. an
action 90 the case for deceit IN the sale OF q
piece Of land IN the town Of Stannard The de-
PENDANTS represented TO plaintiff that they
owned the land II question. and that there
70
trees The plaintiff, relying upon these
statements. purchased some land Of defend
ants. but found that said cedar timber was
not included IN this purchase. The plain
tiff alleged in his declaration that the de-
PENDANTS derived their title 10 the land &C
tualy sold from certain persons, but otter
ed No proof on that point ID the Court be
low and they claimed that there was va
rance between the proof and the deelsrs
tiou, and after verdict for the plaintiff, the
defendants moved an arrest Of judgment
which motion the Court pro f0rma over
ruled To which exceptions were taken TO
this Court Il. H. IRlcoit and A V Spsul-
ding for plaintiff K. 5 lstt and { r
Hard for defendants
The case OF Charles {. Post ap ee -. NJ
t Smile apt Is an action OF genera ss-
sump>i; brought to recover 500 and inter
est which Wa paid by plaintiff TO defend
ant, Oh q certain contract for the msnuisc
ture and delivery OF lot Of s7Outs which
! existed N ISL, lS-2 and 1873 The plain
! tIf claims that II 9 trlal which was had be
tween the parties IL the " ashingtOn County
[ Court. this one hundred dollar payment was
I not included q IL, but was omitted through
! the Representations Of defendant made ri
the time, that he had given him credit for
II, when IN tact he had not. The fact sp-
I pearei IN tins case that the defendant had
I not given him credit for the 500 The de-
/ lence IN the suit was that the trial IN the
| Washington County Court was bar to any
/ recovery in this, and the case comes 10 this
{ court Oh exceptions by the defendant 10 the
ruling OF the County Cour; adjudging the
night oi the plaintiff 70 recover II Bal
lard for plaintiff = W. Russell for de-
PENDANT.
Charles W AthertOn rs Arthur f Bur
dick. TINS = al action OF trespass for as
sault and battery. trial by jury verdict for
defendant The defendant claimed to jls-
tify bis expulsion Of plaintiff IRON the
promises and his violence under writ Of
possession. The court charged the Jury
that the defendant was only liable for ex-
oess of violence committed upon the PLAIN
IF II eiectlng him from the premises, and
that the VIII Of possession afforded him 8
Justification. unless be used more violence
Khan was necessary IN such expulsion The
plaintiff made certain rec uests 10 the court
10 charge the Jury. which were not com
piled with 10 which refusal and the charge
g. given, exceptions were taken TO this
court. 4. '. Spaulding and I 1. Law
renee for plaintiff I. K. Hard and " l. |
Burnsp for defendant.
Robert Z. Stevens ap 'ee = Il P Martin /
az :. l. z action Of troyer for pronls- I
Soy note Plea general issue and trisl BY |
jury. Verdict was directed for the defend /
ant % the ground that the proof offered by I
the plaintiff mad 8 tendency 10 alter or
change the written contract embraced IN .
the note itself The plaintiff claimed that
the evidence was admissible for TWO res-
s0ns-trst. a. showing that the contract
was made, independent Of the note, to
return the note on performance o! q certain
act by the plaintiff and second as tending
10 show fraud II obtaining the note.
These were the two questions involved in
the case Il. Ballard for plaintiff T. L.
Hard for defendant.
SATURDAY, jan. :. 1916
The case Of Geo. J. Stannard Us. ". II.
and Geo. + Mead. which was finished yes
terdaY morning Is al action of audita que
rela 10 set aside an execution for want Of
reeognizsnce for review. In the County
Court judgment was rendered for the plain
tiff. The case comes to this court on e1cep-
tons by defendant Il S Peck and NJ. Z.
Tyler for plaintiff T. r Hard for deien-
dant
The next rase heard was that Of the
Merchant National Bank vs. Rodney 5
W ires This l. an action of covenant !
broken The plaintiffs seek to recover IN
der and by virtue OF the conditions OF g
certain bond. executed by the defendant
TO the plaintiffs at the time OF the purchase
by the defendant, OF the plaintiffs, Of the
premises now owned and occupied by the
Howard National Bank. IN this city, by
v ich the defendant agreed not TO allow
the banking room OF the premises to be oc-
iupled for banking purposes for period
)i SIX years IRON the date Of the agreement
lnder penalty Of $ 600. Nearly four years
k,r-a 10 he
'old by defendant TO the present owners,
md the present suit was brought by plain
Ifs. The court below gave Judgment for
plaintiff Tor nominal damages. on the !
.round that the breach OF the agreement .
vas OF no actual damage to plaintiff, under
be statute which was passed 10 moderate =
be rigOr Of the common law. NJ. r. TYLER
or plaintiffs L. L. Lawrence for defend u
mt. {
l. T. Terrill vs.. John Early and c. W. Il
reynolds. This l. al appeal from Chan Q
cry. Ii appeared that one Thomas Henly :
D ls12 brought q suit against Patrick !.
ienly and attached the property Of the de- =
endsnt By consent Of the parties the pro- c
erty was sold under the statute at Sher- Z
Is sale by the orator. he being the officer u
mo made the attachment The property i
las bid of by {. Flsnnery. but before the q
led sued both Thos. and Patrick Henly =
nd summoned the orator a. trustee He
btained judgment against both the prin- Vi
pal defendants and trustee. SubseQ uent-
Z Patrick Henly was sdjudged bankrupt, "
nd his assignee took the property that was u
i'd of by Fisnnery and disposed of it ss Ut
ssets of the baDkrupt's estate. Thereupon Je
lannery refused to pay Terrill his bid on p'
ie property, snd Terrill refused TO pay "
arly the amount OF the Judgment against ~
i'm as trustee Terrill then brought his "
ii to enjOin Early from enforcing the col !"
ction OF his judgment, and the question
sfore this court Is whether the defend J"
Ut Early can be so enioined. L. L. Law
nee foI the orator Z. j. Phelps and L.
Wilbur for the defendants. o.
Mary A. Wheelock vs.. John E. Wheeloek Z
ais. This is petition in favor of the 70 70
rstrix, who claims that in the laying out 10
q highway across her land in the town 81
Milton, she did not receive the notice ~
hich is required by the statute to be given OF
8 landowner. and conseq uently she was ~
)t present at the hearing on the LAYING 50
1t Of the highway, and no land damages Us
ere allowed TO her. The petition was for w
! injunction against the laying out of the as
ghwsy. The defendants, who were the oI
iginal petitioners for the laying out of u u
e highway. claim for their defence, that 81
e court of chsncery has no jurisdiction le'
the matter, for the reason that the ora Gu
il has a complete remedy under the te
stute The Chancellor below. on demur- IN
r. dismissed the petition holding that the 70
urt of chancery had no jurisdiction. The an
Sc comes to this court on appeal from this an
cision. C. W. Writers for the oratrix, les
G. Whittemore and II. Ballard for de- OF
adants. This court intimated upon ths ~
airing that they should Affirm the decision IN
the Chancellor which dismissed the petit
10. d.
To- str % "a sas falin0sd ana nf Sfa r. 20 Su