Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1880-03-17
Washington County Court.
Hon. TIMOTHY p. REDFIELD. Presiding Judge.
Hon, PHTLANDER RIFORD. Assistant ud ge.
Hon. JAMES A. C0BURN, Acquaintance
MELVILLE z. SMILE. CLERK.
FRANK PLUMLEY. states Attorney.
john l.. FUTILE, Sherlu.
SteuORrapler.

Inc civil Jury ctleuuat was u'oPoSOu VI
last Thursday, only two cases having been
tried, and the court then to ok a recess
until Monday, to give the state attorney
an opportunity to prepare the criminal
cases.
On Monday fornoon the new dockets
were called. There are only cighty-seven
new entries upon the law dock ct, a very
small number for this county, where there
have often been one hundred and fifty new
cases entered at term. TIL ere are forty
six new entries upon tn ehancery docket.
The divorce business has dwindled greatly
within the last two years, and this term,
instead of eighteen applications. as was
customary a while ago there are only
three, viz. :-Abbie E. Session of North
field VS.. Erastus II. Session of Bridgeport,
Conn, for desertion; Margaret McDaniels
of Cabot VS.. John j. McDaniels of Law
renee. for dcsertion, intolerabe severity
and refusal to support; and Arabella IL.
Clark of Middlesex VS.. Leonard G. Clark
Of Moretown, for descrtion.
Messrs. H. S. Stanton Of Rox bury and
B. F. Spalling of Montpelier were ad-
mitted to the bar on Monday. Both are
remarkably well fitted for legal practice
and will undoubtedly be successful in their
calling. Mr.. Spalding goes at once to
Dakota. Mr.. Stanton has not yet decided
where to put out his shingle.
The court is now engaged in trying The
State VS.. Enos B. Hazen of Cabot, indicted
for setting fire to his sawmill, situateu on
the west hill in Cabot, on the 3lst of
August, 1876, with intent to defraud the
Vermont Mutual insurance company.
The testimony is not yet finished.
Messrs. Frank Plumey, states attorney.
and j. P. Lamson for the state; MessrS.
S. G. Shurtlefl, Charles IL. Heath and D.
l.. Hoyt for the respondent.
The cases tried by the jury were as fol-
lows:
Charlotte Z. Edison vs.. Perley 3elknap.
This case was mentioned as being on trial
in last weeks paper. The plaintiffs de
ceased husband and the defendant were
partners in business in Mortified and
owned II certain house on Vine street
in that village in common. Mr. Edison
died in 1872 and the widow and the
defendants son quarreled about division
of the pronerty. After much controversy
an arrangement was made on the first of
January, 1873, by which the defendant
offered to buy her out for S45O0, and to-
deed her the house and lot in question for
$1,000, as Il part of the $500. In making
the deed of the defendant undivided half
of the house and lot the east and west
lines were made to run three hundred and
thirtv-three feet north from Vine street TO
Il certain granite post, whereas the granite
post is only two hundred and thirty three
feet. The defendant after the settlement
took out letters of administration on Mr..
Edson's estate, decided her the other undi-
vided half, and in that deed the same
statement as to the length of the east and
west lines of the lot was made. The
plaintiff proceeded to occupy up to the end
of the three hundred and thirty-three feel
and the defendant attempted to control the
land beyond the granite post, and hence
the present suit. The court, after the tes
timuny was closed, ordered a verdict for
the defendant. The case will 60 to the
supreme court for the second time. 1t has
previously been tried in both the county
md supreme courts once. The value of
the land may be sixty dollars. 1t is less
than five thousand feet in area and Is back
of the lots upon the street. Messrs
Heaton, Plumley, Wing for plaintiff;
Messrs Fisk, johnson for defendant.
f. II. George vs.. Perkins Richardson.
Small us the first suit was, this was only,
one twentieth AS large; for while the other
might involve sixty dollars, this, at the
most, couldn't have yielded the plaintiff
| more than three dellars exclusive of costs.
In fact, it did not yield him anything
except the expensive privilege of paying
his lawyer (who ought to have advised
him to go home and not bring such suiD
and of making the defendant good for his
costs. 1t appeared from the evidence that
the plaintiff was in 1878 the occupant of
little place in East Calais, the garden of
which abutted upon a road leading to the
gristmill in that village. In the spring of
1878 the seectmen of Calais made ar
rangemenL with DR.. Asa George, the
owner of the plaintiffs premises, by
which they were allowed to take portion
of the garden for the purpose of widening
the road. The plaintiff, it would seem,
must have known of the agreement since
he admitted that he was at home when it
was made, and heard part of the talk But
he now denies all knowledge of it until
after the land was taken. In June the
defendant, who was highway surveyor of
the district, went and removed the fence,
tore up three young apple trees and two
rows of potatoes, and added the land %
the limits of the highway. Plaintiff
thereupon instituted the present suit. In
September 1878, the sclectmen paid DR..
George twenty five dollars in full settle
ment, us they say, Of all damages, and of
the present suit; but this is denied by the
doctor, who swears that the twenty five
dollars merely went TO pay land damages
The court ruled that the plaintiff could
recover merely for the value of the apples
and potatoes, If at all The jury prompt
ly returned II verdict for the defendant
Mr.. l.. l.. Durant for plaintiff; Messrs.
Shurtletf and Wing for defendant.
State vs.. Melvin r. McCrillis. The re-
spondent last summer kept grocery in
the basement of Durkee's block, on Main
street, in Barre lower village. The town
grand juror, on the 9th or 10th of last
December, made II complaint against him
under the nuisance act, and his place was
closed up in consequence. He appealed to
the county court The testimony tended
to show that during the summer and au-
tumn he sold n goo deal of lager beer
buLthe evidence of his selling at or very
near the time of the complaint was not
yery STRONG. The rpSDOnlput himSelf los.
tilted that after Il warning which one of
the sclectmen. Mr.. Clallin, gave him in Sep
TENDER, he did not sell any liquor or beer.
The jury found verdict of guilty. Frank
Plumley, states attorney, and o. B. Boyce
for the state; Henry X. Field, George w.
Wing and +. w. Blsbeo for the respond
enJ.