Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1880-01-09
Supreme cour. for chit.eniea County.

How. JAMES BARRETT
IIos. TIMOTHY r; REDfIELD, Presiding
Hon. JONATHAN Ross. JUigrS.
Hos. NHEELOCs G. NElzEY.
Tuesday, Jan. 6. -
The Supreme Court for Chittenden county
commenced its sessions this morning. Prayer
waso offered by Rev. r. 4. Griffin, pastor OF
the Methodist Episcopal church. The dock
ct was then called and seventeen of the
twenty-three eases set Tor hearing.
On motion of Hon. William g. Shaw, Mr.
C. r. TurriIl and Mr. ". II. Hare were adj
mitted 10 practice in this court.
The first case taken up was that Of j. j.
Me as. UeHry 4. White. Defendant wish
ed, some time since, to borrow a sum of
money Of his sister. Helen Kenyon, and be-
ing unable 10 read or write got his daughter
to write for him promissory note. De
PENDANT claimed that he borrowed $780, but
by mistake of his daughter the note was
made out for 5000. After discovering, how
ever, that the note was for 5000 he made
several payments, but finally declined TO pay
it, A reference resulted in favor of plaintiff
(wiIo in the meantime had married plaintiff
and defendant took exceptions because Mrs.
Mix was not allowed 10 testify and because
some alleged improper evidence was al
mittcd.
s H. Davis Tor plaintiff IL, y Deavitt
for defendant.
T. W. Mead e. BH5 EHgtcn and LdmOille
Railrood was next argued. The defendant
railroad commenced running their trains be
fore completing their fences and four of
plaintiffs cattle got upon the track and were
killed. On trial in County Court the court
instructed the jury that plaintiff was entitled
to recover, 10 which defendant excepted.
The jury awarded plaintiff some $50.
J. J. Monahan and Seneca llaseltOn for
plaintiff l.. l.. Lawrence, G. s Palmer and
W L. Burnap for defendant.
JOHN Il. GGdedu rs. CHdrles D. Blgod -
In County Court plaintiff recovered STA for
bites inflicted by defendants dog. Excep-
tions taken by defendant on the ground that
sufficient evidence was not adduced, showing
that the dogs feroci,y was such as to render
his being at large dangerous.
Henry Ballard for plaintitf Edward f.
Brnwnell for defendant
WEDNESDAY,, Jan. :.
G,orye ". BOoI,c0rH IS. u. I. .NcGouern
It. as was case brigtling with points"
1t appears, in brief. that the defendant Nc
Govern was put into Jail for debt. Some
illegality appearing, he was released on
writ of habeas corpus. He then commenced
a suit to recover damages for false imprison-
ment and was awarded $50. Before the
award was made, however, he executed an
assignment 10 protect certain of his creditors,
which present plaintiff (another CREDITOR
claims is invalid.
l.. +. Wilbur for plaintiff; J. J. Mona
han and Wales Il Taft for defendants.
The famous case of gorge /. Reynolds "a.
Tie city Of Darlington was next called The
facts in this case are too well known to be
recited at length. 1t will suffice TO say that
in the county court plaintiff recovered $4,000
for injuries to person caused by insufficiency
of highway and the case was carried TO this
court by defendant on exceptions. 1t is now
claimed by defendant
|. That the notice considering the facts
found by the court, was insufficient, in that it
did not point as directly and plainly to the
place as was reasonably practicable under
the circumstances, and did not so designate
the portion of the alleged rut into which
plaintiff claims he drove as 10 enable the de
PENDANT to locate it.
H. That the charge Of the court as To the
care and prudence required of the plaintiff as
quoted in the bill of exceptions was errcne-
OILS and calculated to mislcad the jury.
III. That the charge of the court ms TO the
diligence required of towns in certain spe-
cial eases was eXccptionablc, not because of
the incorrectncss of the law in such special
case, but because this did not call for any
charge upon such supposed case, and the ex-
traordinary diligence here mentioned rs re-
quired of towns taken in connection with the
very slight attention mentioned in the pOr-
ton of the charge quoted under the second
head, would tend TO mislead and influence a
jury, by leading them to understand that an
extraordinary degree of care and diligence
was required of towns, and Il very slight de-
gree of care required on the part of individ-
uals.
". 1t appeared from the testimony (as
found by the bill of exceptions) that the
main injury complained of by the plaintiff,
as existing at the time of trial, and the prin-
cipal permanent injury complained of by him
at that time, was thckening of the pleura
or lining membrane of the chest and lungs,
and an adhesion of the same to the lungs and
walls of the chest and that there was no
injury to the lung itself. 1t also appeared
from the plaintiffs evidence that this injury
to the pleura whatever il was, was discov-
cred three DAYS after the injury and five days
before the date of plaintiffs notice to
the city, The plaintiffs notice in mention
ing the different parts of the body injured
uses the word lungs, but does not specify
any injury to them, and it nowhere refers
, TO any injury TO the pl"urH
ne case was argued by T. j. Phelps
and r. H. Start for the plaintiff, and NJ r.
Tyler and L. l.. Lawrence for defendant.
THURSDAY, jan. s.
James Kthtazie Is. JOHN Nchenzie ct. ais.
was heard yesterday. On the 25th of March,
1869, Patrick Mckenzie and Austin Mcken-
zie and his wife mortgaged certain land in
Sheburn to John Mckenzie to secure seven
notes for 81 900. The first note. $500, was
paid; and John Mckenzie owing James Nc
kenZie 81, 100, he transferred to him the six
remaining notes. October 1ith, 1873, John
and Austin Mckenzie undertook to assign
all their apparent right in these notes and
mortgage to James Mckenzie and to that
end at the advice of the then town clerk
of Shelburn, six new notes were made out
and signed payable to James Mckenzie, and a
new mortgage was executed and the original
mortgage TO John Mckenzie was marked rs
discharged upon the record. Feb. s, 1871,
\ ustin Mckenzie and wife mortgaged the
property to Michael Mckenzie, Jr.. To secure
Twelve promissory notes, which were assigned
To Van Sicklcn, Walker X Co. James Nc
kenzie brought II petition in chancery that
his mortgage be decreod a valid charge upon
the land and for foreclosure. That court
issued dccretal order in favor of the orator,
from which defendants appealed
ID. Roberts and Il. Roberts for plaintiff,
]. W Russell and f. r. Hard for defend
ants.
THURSDAY. JAN. 3
HsLaH l. and U'1is,fm u. Wright ~ The
TOuH Of ColchfSter December % 1871.
the female plaintiff was injured by II car
rage accident on the road in Colchester at
the foot OF the Shipman place and suit was
instituted, on the ground of insufficiency of
the highway, for 5000 damages. On trial
at the last term OF the County Court it ap-
peared that plaintiffs notice 10 the town
made an error of fifteen rods rs to the exact
location of the scene of the accident The
presiding judge decided Thai such notice
was insufficient and directed Il verdict for
defendant. and thecasc comes before this
court ON an appeal from that decision
T.. b. Taft, X. s Taft, and W. L. Bur
mp, for plaintiffs; q. T. Ray, and Henry
Ballard for defendant.
INTERESTING LkG Al QUFsrlcT. inter
csting question over the limit of attachments
has been re-opened at Windsor and Rutland
in regard to property which was attached ten
years ago, but recently sold under another
attachment by deputy who Knew nothing
about the previous one. The Eureka Mann
featuring Company of Rutland at the outset
of their ten years lawsuit with the Winds'r
Manufacturing Company over the right to
manufacture stone clIannclling machines, "a
tached two of them. The notice was posted
and keeper appointed, hut there were no
further Proceedings by the sheriff, and the
matter was forgotten \ Boston firm, TO Sc
cure their claims against the Windsor com
pany, lately attached the machines which
1yrrr If Wrei Rutland and niiisfnrh and snll