Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1878-10-11
sTPTE'IEEE SESSION.

The first case tried WIS Jared himmis vs..
| liza and John Andrews, being an action OF
trtspass for entering, and cutting and car
| ryin. away wood and grass from the land Of
| plaintiff situated III Alurctowu. dtfcnd6nts.
also tearing down plaintiff fences. The
court directed verdict tor attendants, on
| plaintiffs evidence, On the ground that
| plaintiff had proved n possession. Heath
y Carleton for plaintiff II. Wheaton and :.
c. Shurtleif ior defendants.
The next case WAS that OF !. \. Wing exc
cutOr Of John Gray. V. +. W. Green. being
an action upon four rromlssory notes dated,
| the first three In February, and the Last IN
| May, 1865. To the first three ORIGINALLY given
to Ezekiel Clifford and by him assigned to
| John Gray aforesaid, tho defendant plead
| the general issue and to the last. the statute
of limitations. The plaintiff replied that
| the note WAS Witnessed and hence would not
| outlaw unit! fourteen years had elapsed. The
man whom the plaintiff claimed as witness
| denied that he was present at the signing OF
the note, but the plaintiff proved that he
WAS and did witness the note at the time it
was executed. The jury found the fact rs
| claimed 10y the plaintiff, and rendered YER
\ diet for $50 -. being the face ii the notes
| with simple instead I'll annual interest n the
notes provided, the Jury imagining bv
| strange miscuuccptInu, that annual interest
WAS not legal. > \. y Gec. ". Wing aud 5.
G. ShurtlcH appeared Tor the plaintiff and
Il. Ia. Gle,d, OF Morrisvi!ic and Chas. IL.
Heath ior defendant.
Bclknap, Ely Co. ~ John IL Paddock
WAS called up out uf It's proper order to ac-
conmoj,te Judge Poland who appeared tor
defendant. This w.a, an action on covenant
| broken. The plti.diEg- disclosed that some
Years ago several manufacturing firms
throughout New EnsL.ui associated them
| selves together biuiIu. tho n.sCivCs by Joint
obligation to resist aid defend, by legal
! means, the suit or salts which the Lane
Manufacturing Company ell Montpelier WAS
then Threatening 10 hiins against them, for
infringement OF q certain patent. SHch suits
We're brought and defended and assessments
We're made upon the IirIns TO meet the eN-
pen,rs OF the defence. Contributions were
made 10y defendant Paddock as his counsel
stated to the amount uf SSlp, while other
members had given Elt less. l;ut without
considering the merits Of tnc ease the court
directed a verdict f1r the 4, ten,iaut ON the
ground that the suit WAS not properly
brought q. NJ Fisk ard j. ". EoTcll. OF
Randolph iof plaintiffs.
The next case WAS that Of Charles L. Stcv-
ems vs.. d. W. pudiry. beng an action on
the case Ior truspass Tor injury resulting to
plaintiff while 1T Washington county Fair
the deit ndnnI careless, and Unnecessary 40
tiun as marshal ut said Fair in ordering and
driving on when no race was called and the
track Was clear the two horse team of VIM.
Stevens. carrying sIN persons, IN striking
and SO frightening sand horses 10y ms violent
manner that they ran into tho crowd against
the plaintiff wagon throwing hun ont and
So inIuring HIM as to coniin, hmm To- his bed
for . long time aud cause the total and per-
Il.
ant claimed TINT u race hal been called and
he Is marshal had been ordered t. clear the
track. that he warned Mr.. Stevens several
times to leave the track and finally ON his
utglcctins to Gu So. gently and pvlceably
turned the horses cit and that through the
carvlcssuc.s; or ntoNIyLtinu oI the driver the
horse, ran and colliltd with the plaintiffs
team. The Jury wtrr unable t. agree and
were discharged 10y tie court It is unier-
stood that hive were tor rluutiH and seven |
ior defendant. Gleason ~ tield and J. \ |
Wins for piuntIn Heath ~ Carleton and 4
H. ". Il,atou fng defendant
Moses l. and Ann f. Howard ~. George |
Stichncy. THIS was an action of Gcctmen; |
To- recover tho possession ci II tAirly-lve I
acre pasture which the plaintiff Moses. |
claimed that lac had fenced INTO his own land |
and 7, served when deciding To- defendant IN /
ISL The defendant denied that this thir- /
ty-iive acre lot was So fenced m and the Jury |
50 found rendering verdict Tor defendant.
j. \. y Geo. W. MmG tor plaintiff. leaton
y Heath FOR defendant.
Wu II. Boyuton and another U.s.. Aorrill
Gilman Tins Wa an action M the cft,c for
INVASION Of u at,rFrviltge. The plaintiffs
brother; and Iout owners OF u slaughter
house IN Northheli claimed that thy owned
certain springs from which their premises
were supplied with water, and that defend
ant who owned the land above damned 1t and
collected the water III "a reservoir thereby
divcrtin. the water from plaintiffs Springs.
The defendant denied that there h. ! ever cA-
listed permanent .rung@ dependent ON his
Land tor water and that whatever wJiyr had
been supplied To the plaintiffs was mere sur
tac,. prrrontions and didn't constitute m
easement on dcicniluts soil The jnry ron
dcrcd u verdict tnr defendant Carpenter
4 FISH appeared Tor the riiutir Plum
ley y johnson ioI the defendant.
1uclus Robinson apt. v. E,tit, ol Charles
Iamson. This WIS tan appeal nom the
iud"mcnt -. commissioner vu the estate OF
Judge Charles lnmsou lat OF E'Nhur. On
note for $;tS dated IN INU, amt pan ,hlt to
Van Ness SpaldnG, which Lotc was afterwards
to plaintiff. The defence was for