St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1876-12-01
Suits Decided Against the P. & o.


The supreme court at Montpelier last
week, decided two suits against the L.
& o. X. k. The suit with Luncn
burg, is pretty well understood 10y many
of our readers. 1t is in brief this: The
town of Luncnburg aglecd To issue
bonds to the said railroad to the amount
of fifty thousand dollars, after the road
was built through the town and Il sta
ton erected for their use.
After the Railroad Co. had fulfilled
their part of the obligation, they called
upon the town To issue the bonds. The
selectmcn refused, on the ground main
". that when the town gave its consent
to aid, the road was going to Montpcl-
ier: when it was afterwards changed to
the L.moillc valley. Another point oil
which the town relied to release them
from their obligation, was the failure of
the Railroad Co. to have the in>tru
ment of agreement recorded.
OF course, both and all their points
raised, were simply pretcNts to get rid
of fulfilling their part of the obligation.
The road WAS built and WAS running
through their town, and good depot ac
Communications were erected, and Lu
ncnhurg v;s enjoying all the privileges
and advantages which she had any lea
son to expect from the road.
The Railroad company. after waiting
considerable time. brought suit tol the
bonds, and the Supreme Court have
lust decided against the road, on the
sole ground, ;is we learn. that the law
required that aftcI the consent in writ
ing WAS obtained from the people of
Lumcnburg, that this instrument of as
sent should he recorded in both the
town and county clerk offices before
the commissioners named in the writing
should make subscription. 1t appeared
AT the trial that although this writing
was left Tor record, the clerks had not
spread it upon the records when the
commissioners made the subscription
ed that the law had been compiled
with that when the instrument WAS
lodged with the clerk, it was virtually
recorded, the same rs Il deed OF other
legal paper. The Count held othcrwiS c.
which is only an added illustration of
the fact that i'll appealing to the courts
~ l,,, lam Ia.
justice.
The case of Luncnhurg is not unlike
that of DanNillc. Both have railroad
facilities, with all their advantages, and
both broke faith with the road. They
found Il legal loophole through which
they crawlrd out of Il solemn obligation.
Such proceeding in individuals would
subject them to public dete>tati ion.
In the case of the Montpelier and St
Jolnshury X. X. Co. against BiNhN, the
same court as above refused Il new trial
The reader may have forgotten about
this case: Freeman BiNhy of Mont
pelier, was comm" from Danvillc IA
mile oI two this side of the Green. the
car tipped over. and Mr.. BiNhy received
n fractured leg. Ia the County Court it
appeared from the testimony of the late
Russell Underwood, (and most of ON
readers know how reliable that man
was). that BiXby was on the rear plat
form of the ear talking with him When
the accident occurred. The judg,
charged the jury that if they found that
not recover. The jury retired ano
found that Bixby was IN The car, ano
gave him il verdict of $1,000. Another
beautiful illustration of the uncertain
ties of the law.