Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1877-01-12

THURSDAY, Jan. 4.
As neither Judge Wheeler nor Judge
Powers arrived this morning, the court con-
tlnued their recess till tomorrow morning.
Judge Wheeler has been telegraphed to but
as yet no reply has been received lie is
probably snow-bound or else ILL., Judge
Powers telegraphs that he hopes to be here
this evening. in which event the court will
probably dispose of those cases which should
not be deferred. The attention Of Judges
Royce and Ross has been occupied to-day
with u habeas corpus hearing.
FRIDAY. Jan. 5
Judge Powers arrived last evening.
Judge Wheeler has been heard from but
will not be present during the term.
The court commenced its session at nine
O'Clock this morning. The first case taken
up, and which is at present being heard is
that of Edwin r. Morse So Amos b.
Cooper. This is petition 10 tOreclose a
mortgage that was given On the sale of the
hotel property in JUnesvIle, by the petit
TONER to the defendant. The sale was for
81 900. of which So 900 was paid down,
and notes and mortgage given for the
balance. The defendant claims that 50 goo
was all that the property was worth, and
that he was induced TO make the purchase
at the agreed price of 81 900, by reason of
the false and fraudulent representations OF
the petitioner. The questions of fact in
volved in the case are. what was the actual
value OF the property at the time OF the
sale, and whether or not there were such
misrepresentation rs the defendant claims
5. Ii. Davis. X. 5. Taft, and l.. L. Durant
for petitioner Ii. N. Deayitt and Ii. Bal
lard for the defendant.
FRIDAY, Jan. =.
The case of Morse w. Cooper was con-
cluded at five O'Clock yesterday afternoon.
Robert X. Stewart vs.. ii. p. Martin was
then heard. This is an action of itroyer to
recover promissory note, the plaintiff
claiming it to have been given as collateral
security to secure the defendant against
damages which might arise to him from a
lien which was in existence at the time,
upon certain property that the plaintiff had
let the defendant have in exchange. The
case comes to this court on exception to the
ruling of the court below by which certain
evidence was rejected which the plaintiff
offered at the trial which tended TO show
that contemporaneous verbal agreement
existed, which affected the contract as ex-
pressed in the note /; also that the defend
ant was guilty of fraudulent representations
in obtaining the note. II. Ballard for the
pihiuliu ouu Ls II. hdEu iOr tuo ueleuldUl.
At the conclusion of the hearing, on mo-
ton of Hon. VIM. &. Shaw, of the examin-
ing committee, Seneca Haselten and +. Ii.
Coin, of this city, were admitted to practice
at this court.
SATURDAY, Jan. Il.
The case OF Eugene Viele and wife vs.,
Mary A. and l.. P. Blodgett was heard this
morning. and will occupy portion of the
afternoon. This is bill in equity. Luther
P. Blodgett as guardian Of Mary j. Viele
received certain property belonging to her
about 1855. which he has never paid back
or settled his guardian account. In 1865
Blodgett was contemplating marriage with
Mrs. Mary A. Hinckley and as he says loan
ed her $4,000 to purchase residence for
herself. Mrs. Hinckley says that The money
was paid to her absolutely upon the con-
siders.ion of her promise of marriage, and
as an ante-nuptial settlement upon her.
She received the money May 90, 1865, and
in the October following she purchased the
premises named in the bill, taking the deed
to herself, in Dec, 1869 Mr.. Blodgett was
married to Mrs. Hinckley and on January
Is. 1873 the parties separated ,s'Mr. Blodgett
leaving his vile IN possession of her house.
Two days previous to this, Mrs. Viele,
the daughter OF Mr.. Blodgett. and her hu,-
band. brought q suit against Mr.. Blodgett
to recover the amount of funds in his hands
as guardian of Mrs. Viele, and attached
Mrs. Blodgett's premises as tho property of
Luther P. Blodgett. judgment was rem
dered in said cause BY default in favor Of
the plaintiff for about 81 800, and execu
ton was issued and Mrs. Blodgett's prem
ises levied upon and set off on such execu-
ton. and this bill is brought for the pur-
pose OF enforcing such Judgment and levy
against said premises. E. K. Hard for the
orators. A. P. Cross and T. f. Wales for
defendant. Mary A. Blodgett. L. P. Blod-
gett has not interposed any defence.
MONDAY, Jan. 9.
At the conclusion Of the hearing of Viele
and wife vs.. Blodgetts, on Saturday after
noon, the case of Charles Bostwick vs..
George K. Brown, was heard This is an
action OF trespass, q. c., for breaking and
entering the plaintiff store, in Richmond,
in the night time and the taking and carry
ing away quantity of cider, etc. The en-
try and seizure defendant pleads was under
q liquor search warrant and that the tres
pass committed wa at the request and I'M
der the command of deputy sheriff Fergu-
son whose assistant ana agent he was in the
execution of the warrant.
The questions involved in the case are
LIST, whether such a warrant may lawfully
be executed in the night time. 2nd,
whether an officer IN the execution of a
search warrant can lawfully take private
individuals to assist him when no resistance
is offered. 3rd, whether an officer in the
execution OF such warrant may lawfully
break open the doors of q mans store with
out first making known the reason of his
coming and demanding admittance. Ii. N.
Deavitt and r. Ii. Start for the plaintiff
s. Ii. Davis for defendant.
The next cause taken up, the hearing of
which was not concluded at the adjourn
ment of the court for the day, was that of
Clark Bates vs.. Francis Lecialr This is an
action upon y promissory note for $500,
prop0rting to have been signed by Z. c.
Leclair and Francis Leclsir. This note
was subsequently given up and another
note with the same signatures substituted
for it. The suit declared upon both notes.
Ii appears that on the second note the de-
PENDANTS name was forged. The case comes
to this court upon questions OF variance
between the declaration upon the note and
the evidence and also upon the question of
estoppal. N. K. Tyler and Henry Ballard
for the plaintiff. X. ). Taft and E. X. Hard
for the defendant.
TUESDAY, Jan. 9.
The arguments Of counsel in the case of
Bates VS.. Leclair, were concluded yester-
day morning. Lorenzo Whitcomb apt vs..
Burlington and Lsmoille Railroad Com
pany was then heard. This is an appeal
taken by the plaintiff from the decisions Of
the commissioners. which allowed him GER
tain land damages resulting from the tax
ing of his land by the defendant. When
this appeal was entered in the County
Court, the defendant moved for its disnis-
sal, on the ground that it was not entered
lat the next term of the County Court fol-
lowing the date of the appeal, as required
by statute. The motion was granted by
the County Court and the appeal was dis
missed, to which the plaintiff excepted. and |
the cause comes to this Court on these ex-
ceptions. In this Court tho defendant
moves to dismiss the exceptions, for the !
reason that this is not the proper remedy in |
this class of cases. ii. Ballard, for the |
plaintiff l.. L. Lawrence and D, Roberts, |
for the defendant.
The village of Winooski apee. vs. Frank |
Gokey apt. then followed. This is an action |
on the case, which il brought by the plain |
tiff to recover penalty OF $50, for keep |
ing billiard saloon in violation efthe village |
ordinance, which required the defendant TO |
have written license from majority of |
the Trustees OF the village, which was to |
be recorded In the Village Clerks Othce Ii |
comes to this Court On question OF de- |
murrer to the action which brings upon |
the question the authority Of the village to |
pass the ordinance above referred to. o. |
p. Ray and II. Ballard, for plaintiff, K. IL. |
Start, for defendant.
The last cause heard was that of Fair |
banks, Brown Il Co vs.. Davis II Wight. |
This was an action OF trover to recover two /
sets of Fairbanks platform scales which they |
sold to NJ. ID. Fuller and upon which the |
plaintiffs claim to have lien. These scales
were assigned by Fuller to Meeker L Dean,
New York firm who through their attor-
neys. Whittemore h Wheeler. sold them TO
defendants. The memorendum OF sale was
lett with the City Treasurer in the absence
OF the City Clerk with the order TO record
the same, but no fee was paid although tho
attorney was informed of the requirement
of the statute. Nearly six months after the
delivery of the scales to Fuller and two