Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1876-01-07

puts 10 his answer In which be claim
against this clam of the stakeholder
OF the Valley road, just as stoutly as W
do. But suppose that were not so. The,
are now certainly In the attitude of msl
who has hired my farm for the period o
twenty years for 81, 900 year. Ate
going on for five Years he stops and says
l will not pay you any more rent
"What is The mstter?" "You hav,
been sued for ejectment and may b,
beaten" Would that be defense fol
himf l don't think anybody would
maintain defense In a court OF
justice long upon that. If anything
has been settled upon as Justice
and law, i, is that party
who takes real estate or anything else as
lessee, cannot deny the title of the
person from whom he has obtained pos.
session of the property till he refuses TO
perform his part of the engagement, or
his title is destroyed by some prior title
So they say we will pay no more Valley
rent, because somebody has brought an
action claiming that they have a better
title than the Rutland has. This is a
matter for the supreme Court Getting
Sherman vs.. Champlain Transportation
company, and don't believe your
Honor is TO be hood sinked by any such
pettifogging. We are entitled 10 the
stipulated price So long as they occupy
the property. And We have not repuli-
ated the contract We have rescinded
it in the sense of setting it aside; we
have terminated il according TO its
terms. II is true the contract calls it
recision, but the use, by these gentle
men in this contract, Of the word re-
cision, must simply be construed to
mean that 1t permits the exercise of a
right that exists in it, We have no
right to give notice Of RECESSION, and
nobody pretended We had, in any other
sense than what is called recisiOn in
the contract, to exercise the right to put
a final termination 30 it when its en-
gagements were violated. and as they
agreed IN the contract 10 turn the prop
erty over to us They say they will not
do il, and that We are not entitled 10 any
security, although We may turn out to
be entirely right, and all we may re-
ceive ia wnat they choose 20 figure out
- III LfA lltf4l- Il tiAdh l4llf- Qt me-
earnings, without any discrimination or
favor to any other line connecting with
il, would be a very small proportion Of
the value OF the thing To the party who
is to hold il II is as Gov Smith repre-
sented to you; it is the joint facilities
in It's control; in short. it is the monop-
ply that il gives that makes the value of
he thing And Yet the gentlemen say,
Now, having exercised your right under
he contract on account of our wrong.
you are put out Of the pale Of all |
leai;hy organizations and are turned |
lver - the tender nercies OF what we
'hoose 10 figure out for you, and we
sill hold the property till the end of the
litigation. Is thar Justice? if it please |
'our Honor; is it aw? So much for |
he Valley.
The claim that We owe them 10 lney |
AN hardly be considered as a good rea-
on for not paying the rent. First rs to
he Vermont and Mas .achusetis, they |
ay no rent is due. BY that | suppose
hey mean lot that 40 rent is due
aspect Of it to Us, but they argue no
ent Is due from Us as lessees. and there
ore We are IN no danger Of being Gust
d if We are kept cut Of the rent II
here IS no rent due it viii become due
fter thirty days
Now, a. To the Addison: They say
hat they should Lot pay any more rent,
T should DOT give any security for pay
u any more, and should not allow us
> exercise any rights in respect of pro
citing ourselves under the contract
Why 2 Because the contract was not
isde Is We Say If vas by the Addison,
= which it Wa le 4-ed to them for TWEEN
: years. No. they don't deny that
- they deny that they &C uaily came
10 possession OF il; No, that is not
MED. 10 they say that they have
zen asked I, pay more than they slip
lated to pay: No. that is not il.
hat then. They have gone back
veuiy years ami adopted the old de
nee sci up 10y the Central in the Iir-i
ginning of this c4use-that they got
lssession OF the property in an uniin-
he'd condition, which they say was to {
; finished by US ind the contract.
hat We made an independent agree :
ent with chem that they should put il S
NANa'A. 81 NsAaiNA We ~AANNaAA NiAf a-AfAA4r I
At they had spent SlO0, 600. and there :
re did not ow any rent. Do thy say
e agreed il was to be done out of the Z
nif No; but they say we owe them q
Independent SUN ot money for work c
snd that tuey took posses
N OF this property not in their char '
ter as lessee. but in some character d
lich they set up of their own. Well. !
W, suppose | rent house to some y
dy for year, and by ani BY ask Il
N o. pay a quarters rent. He SAYS, v
know | made this lease with you. /
lich Is in writing. but / dill not take e
ssessi n OF the house as lessee. but in II
y character as citizen, or as a Tt q
liver. or as a trustee. and n that char o.
Ter | have not agreed 10 pay YOU any v
D. and beside that ! nave shiagled the .
If which sou agrleI | might shuglc !!
d You would pay mt for; therefore | ii
mt pay you any rent. That is Just the | 4
-. Is true thy say that We made ;
p lease, and got The properly. AMI run h
tor several years and paid the rent; il 81
true that We have occupied a.. hut IN %
entirely different CHI irlct They | W
I two uJlIe-. one Is ctl .siitl. the u
lcr i terresiisi one time they are IN 1.
body celestial in the lease. aud an ~
Ter time in the body terresiiai as lrus- :.
- h. contract SAYS the rent Is not Fl
b. paid till the rad Is completed. ID,
e gentlemen say they have completed Ii
and done business enough 10 save a Oh
" lork lease which required il 10 be th
npleteG by crrfaia time That II b.
: completed enough ior the purposes %
New York law. but hardly caough ~
the PURPOSES of Vermont Jaw n
iov. smith Your statement Is ~,
-diy correct that We paid the rent for In
eral years. There never was but one co
7Ineut OF rent made, and the mstter ra
been in dispute ever since. c.,
ir. Edmunds dare say that Gov de
it'll. If We are taking outside, aud IL