Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1877-02-09

| Gu Us hepuohcdn canuiuhtes NJ inc elec-
| ton.
TIE defendant kept his engagement with
the plaintiffs intestate, and laborod, as he
had agreed, to induce men to vote for Bax
ter. ard on election day he disbursed the
sum of S475. which he spent, as he testi-
fed, partly for teams to get voters to the
polls, and partly in treating them to intoxi
eating liquor after they had got there or
near there.
How much of this be spent for teams and
how much for treats he did not testify, and
thc referees are unable to find.
J ie defendant paid for the use of a wagon
to 20 to the Hyde Park Convention, using
his own horse, S5, and for the expenses of
himself and team on the trip, 1915.
The referees find that all the disbursements
charged in the defendants account, con-
nected with the refreshments, both fluid
and solid. furnished by him to the atten-
dants upon the Convention, were made by
the defendant in the course Of, and in ac-
cordancc with his employment by the plain
tiff $ intestste in connection with the cam
paign, and that both parties understood and
intended that such refreshments should be
given gratuitously to the freemen who re-
ceived them, with u view to some extent to
influence their votes, not only at the Con-
vention, but also at the election which fol-
lowed.
The parties both expected and intended
that the liberal preparations for food and
drink for those who would 90 to the Con-
ventIon in Baxters interest, would become
known, and would have some influence in
inducing men to 60 there and vote for their
candidate, who otherwise would stay at
home, and that having thus become COM
mitted to Baxter at the nominating conven-
ton, they would also vote for him at the
polls.
The free ride, free lunch, and free drinks,
were not an unimportant part of system
arranged by the plaintiffs intestate and the
defendant to secure votes for their candl-
date, both at the Convention and the polls,
which without such encouragements and in
ducements they did not expect to get.
No evidence was produced to show that
either the plaintiffs intestate, or the de-
fendsnt or those to whom the liquor was
furnished, as above stated, were, in 1866,
agents of any town or city in the State, for
the sale of intoxicating liquors, and the
referc es do not find such to be the TACT.
And they do find that the liquor charged
in defendants account, was not delivered
to the attendants of the Convention at any
private dwelling or its dependencies.
The referees have thus rected all the
items in the defendants account ir offset.
which were charged in 1866, and they re-
port that the same ought to be allowed to
him, together with interest from, say Au-
gust lst. 1856, to September 2lst, 1875, ex.
cept such portion thereof, if any, as in the
opinion of the Court is an illegal and invalid
charge, as contrary to public policy, and
the provisions of the law of this State rel
ative to the sale, furnishing and giving
away of intoxicating liquor, and of section
IS chapter l, of the General Statutes, rela-
tive to elections.
How the DEFENDANTS offset should he ap-
piled as between causes No. II and - res
pectively, the referees submit tc the Court.
The defendants entire claim was pleaded
in offset in both actions, and was presented
before the referees