Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1879-01-17

Hos Hos Ja,.Hnas 4 fsas as3: sSs-H' A's.e... Judges
! Hon WALTER C..DUsToS.
A. J. HotrTd. Clerk.
FRIDAY, Jan. 10, 1879.
The arguments in the case of Macomber
| vs.. MacOmber occupied the entire forenoon
yesterday.
The next case heard was that of William
Brew apt VS.. George Beecher ap'ec. This
was an action OF general and special
assumpsit. Pleas, the general issue and
statute of limitations. The County Court
rendered Judgment for the plaintiff on the
referees report, to which the defendant e1-
cepted, claiming that upon the statement OF
I facts as found by the referee the plaintiff
was not entitled to recover. u. A. Blng-
ham for plaintiff; L. l.. Lawrence for de-
fendant.
The case of Seth Z Peckcr & Co. VS.. s.
NJ. Barney which was next heard was an
action OF general sssumpst to recover the
price of certain Intoxicating liquors and
cigars. Plea, the general issue. payment,
and offset Trial by jury and verdict for
the defendant under his plea in set of.
The main controversy WAS with reference to
the first barrel of whisky named IN plain
tiff's specifications and The defendants right
to recover Oack the moneys paid upon said
charge of the court on this point the
plaintiffs exceI'sd, claiming that moneys
paid for liquors sold in violation of law
cannot be recovered back under such plea.
G S. Palmer and Z. Ii. Start for plain
tiffs, l.. F. Wilbur for defendant.
State VS.. Augustus Stought0n, Thomas
Pope, Edward Gorrcyi and George Slough
ton. This was an indictment against the
respondents jointly. charging them with the
crime of burglary found by the Grand Jury
at the September Term, 1878 OF the County
Court, and comes to this court on motion in
arrest of judgment and exceptions to the
charge Of the court below. The statute 10
this State grants to each respondent the
right to six peremptOry challenges. The
respondents demanded separate trial,
but upon the intma,ion of the court.
that such proceedings might result
in continuance of some of the
cases, they Withdrew their request and con-
sented to JOINT trial. They then demanded
twenty-fUur peremr:ory challenges, which
was refused by the court. on the ground
that in cOnsenting tc joint trial they must
join in their challenges and were thereby
entitled to but six. To the ruling OF the
court the respondents excepted States
Attorney Peck and L. 5. Palmer for the
State; ". l.. Burnsp and X. Ii. Start for
the respondents.
SATURDAY, Jan. IL, 1879
The hearing Of State vs.. Stoug htOn ct ais,
WAS concluded yesterday morning. The
remainder of the day was occupied with the
arguments of counsel in the case o. Van
Sicklen, Walker * Co., VS. Austin Mcken-
Zie and wife and Thomas Hart.
This was bill to lOrecluse a mortgage
10 gf and
Hart from claiming security under the same
mortgage. on the groGEd that be held the
four fret notes securci IN the mortgage.
The orators clam that said notes held by
Hart had been paid and cancelled Ihese
notes were mado payable TO Michael
Mckenzie or bearer, aGd the last eight Of
the series were transferred to Patrick
Mckenzie, and by hlLn to the orators. When
the orators purchased said nOt, the notes
purpOrtIHg To be the remaining notes oi the
series were shown them. to satisfy them that
they had been paid The defendant Hart
rests his cain on notes corresponding In
tenor but differing IN appearance from the
notes shown the Crat0rs and from the other
notes OF the series. and attempts to
explain the cause Of such difference. The
question l. whether tho notes shJwn to
orators by Patrick McKeGZie or the notes
held by Hart are tie ones originally given.
E. K. Hard and j. 3 Russell for orators,
X. 5. TAFT iOr defendant Hart.
An evening" session was held when the
two remaining cases on the docket
were heard.
noward National Bank vs.. Edward C.
Loomi- g 20. !. LOOMS and John p. Howard.
ThiS il a petition u iJrec!ose a mortgage of
real estate. The iIcts in the case are briefly
these. The petitioner Is and always has
been National Banking Association In this
city, under the act of Congress, approved
June 3. 1864. The defendants E. G. and
&. |. LOOMS being ON July !, 1875. in
debted to petitioners on pre-existing
debt Of IS coo with no other security than
ihcir own names. and having berome en-
barrasSed, the petitioners required of them
additional security. and 1t was on that day
agreed between L + Loomis and petitioner.
that their debt should be put into a note
OF IS 600, dated July !, 1875. signed by
them, and payable to the order of peti-
toner, in six months aitsr date, which the
petitioner should discount. at >ix per cent
interest, and that the petitioners were to
carry the debt along NJ >iz per cent until
L. Z. L0omis could turn himself, and he
was to begin to reduce the indebtedness at
the maturity of said note, and said note
should be extended or renewed by discount
OF new paper for him by etitioner. by his
paying the lHtrr-st and paving the princi-
pal "a quick a. he could and that the
In question should be executed by
said L { LOOMS 20 the petitioner in lul
filment and saclrity ior the perform
ance Of said agreement The mortgage
was accordingly executed and delivered
the same day. and the condition thereof Is
as follows - The condition Of this deed is
such that ii the said E. c. L)omis shall well
and truly pay or cause II be pad unto the
said Howard National Bank, its successors
or assigns. one certain note in writing
bearing date the 9TH day OF July, 1875.
Tor the sum If S.. 900, payable t. the order
of said bank, SIX months alter the date
thereof and signed by the SAID Edward Z.
and George L LJOmi- al~o any note or notes
which may be given saId bank by said
LOOml-os, at any time hereafter In renewal
Of said note first described etc. then this in
strument To BE- void otherwise of force" The
note described in the mortgage, was given to
and discounted by It ard the notes
representing the old Indebtedness given up
t. LOOMS. At the maturity ol the note
described In the mortgage, 1t was taken up
by the discount by the petitioner of r hew
note for the same amount, sigled by the
same parties Jan. 7. 1876. at six months
without interest /; which. at its maturity
was taken up by the discount by the pc
titiOner for said Loomises Of their new note
for the same amount dated Jan. 10, 1877.
and the petitioner pov holds and claims
under the last mentioned mute. The de-
iendsnt Howard is Subsequent attaching
creditor and subsequent murtgagee OF the
property. The question before
this court is as 10 tho validity of the
tn the petitioner. K. S. Taft for
orator. ". &. Shaw Tor the defendants.
The last case was that Of Allen Stone VS..
Chauncey b. Binn. Jr. This Is bill in
to set aside an award. claimed TO
have been made in November 1877. The
grounds on which the orator asks to have
the award set aside are that 1t was made
without any notice to hun OF the time and
place OF hearing and that the action of the
arbitrator was unjust, partial and corrupt.
0. Z. Ray for orator; X II. Start for de-
iendant
The court will conclude ItI session to-day,
" hen the opinions will be delivered.
The EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANITY. The effects
Of the work OF Christ are even to the unbe-