Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1877-11-23
Important Decisions by the supreme
COnrr.

Important uPctAtOnA nv Nhe supreme
Court.
The general term of the State Supreme
Court having been in session. at Montpelier
since Oct 80. closed its nbors last saturday,
having tried some tifty-one cases many of
them important ones making the longest
term holden by the full bench for many years
The case of the town of bennington vs.
Henry F Lathrop and others, involving the
validity of the bonds issued by several towns
in Bennington county. to aid in building the
Lebanon Springs railroad wasdecided against
the town of Bennington. and the validity of
the bonds thereby established. The grounds
upon which the validity of the bonds was as
sailed by the plaintiffs were the following, ms
summed up in the defendants brief
l. That the statute under the authority of
which they were issued is unconstitutional.
II That the action of the Governor in
converting the Legislature, and of the two
houses in enacting the statute, was procured
by improper inducements, and undue in
huence.'
III. That the assent of a majority of the
tax payers of the town was not actually Oh
tanned, as required by the Act
". That the assent of the tax payers was
obtained by undue influence, circumvention,
and fraud, and by false representations made
in public and private meetings TO the citizens
of said town.
v That the execution of the bonds by the
selectmen and treasurer. after the assent of
the tax payers was obtained was procured by
false representations
VI. That five years after the execution
and delivery of the bonds, and the purchase
Herewith by the town of an interest in the
IL D,tlr,aI 81,
disposition was made of the property of that
Company through the influence of the defend
ant Park as greatly Deprecated the value OF
the interest so acquired. and therefore dis
charged the town from the payment of its oh
legations
The court held. as indicated by the decision
for the plaintiffs that these allegations were
not sustained by the facts. 1t was admitted
at the hearing that the serious charges made
in the bill of complaint against Hon. I. w.
Park were untrue. and this is considered
complete vindication of his conduct in refer
ence TO the Issue of the bonds in question.
This was a test case and all the towns in Ben
nington county, along the line of the Ben
nington 4 Rutland railroad and Mt Tabor and
Wallingford in Rutland county, were awaiting
| the decision to determine whether they would
be liable on their bonds. The bonds of these
towns. with the interest, amount to consider
ably more than half million dollars.
| In the case of Aldrich VS.. Harvey, for as
sault and battery in Caledonia county, where
| jury found that the defendant committed the
assault ''by reason of intoxication from intox-
icating liquor sold him by the plaintiff" the
| judgment of the lower court, holding that the
defendant was not liable, was affirmed.
The decision of the Caledonia County Court
in the case of State vs. Hopkins, the St Johns
bury insurance agent, for forgery, was revers-
ed and he was sent back for a new trial. The
respondent was admitted to bail in the sum of
1920.
The action upon cases from this county was
AS follows In the case of Whitney VS.. First
National Bank of Bnttleboro, suit involv-
ing the responsibility of national bank,
whose cashier had taken government bonds
for safe keeping and placed them in the vault
of the bank. having receipted for them as
cashier, it being claimed that the bonds were
lost the court held that the bank was not re-
sponsible. The leading points at issue in this
case and another similar one-that of Wiley
VS.. the First National Bank of Brattleboro-
were fully stated in our columns in our issue
of the week following the decision upon them
by the Supreme Court of this county at the
February term. 1873, The gi.t of the whole
matter is that Il National Bank cannot be held
liable for special deposits.
The case of Mary F. Kinball VS.. VIM. T
Bruce, which was an action of ejectment-
the matter in controversy being in reference
to the title of a certain pasture situated il
Newfane-was decided in favor of the plain,
tif-the decree deing an affirmation of the
Judgment of the Supreme Court at its last
February term.
The case of James 7. Pease VS.. the West
River National Bank was an action in which d
person borrowed money of the bank, and
transferred stock of the bank as collateral St
curity. This person afterward sold the stock
TO the plaintiff and tha bank refused to sur
render it until the loan was paid. The case
was brought before the court upon bill il
chaneery and the decree dismissing the bill
was affirmed
In the cases of Lorenzo W. Bush and sam
uel B. Higgins VS., Luther Osgood, apt, suit
was brought against the defendant, who wa
constable of the town of Brookline, for selling
property for payment of school taxes which
the plaintiffs claimed were Illegally assessed
Both these cases are with the court.
I