Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1882-03-29
Washington County Court.

nR ueen uihpOseu oi, the JufOfb Were ulhmltheu |
or the term and a recess was taken until next |
Tuesday forenoon at ten o'clock. The ensuing |
week will be occupied by the court in trying di.
gorce cases. witness cases in which jury trial has
Deen waived, and the miscellaneous business Of
he term.
The trial OF Dennis w. Cooley and wife Of Lis |
bon, New Hampshire, against the town Of Berlin,
which was going on at the time last weeks issue
went to press, resulted in a verdict for the plain
tiff--s5l.25 for the injury to Mrs Cooleys knee,
and S248.75 for the injury to her backbone.
The case will go TO the supreme court on certain
legal questions about the validity OF the notice to
warrant verdict for spinal injuries. In 1874 the
legislature passed law requiring among other
things that a person claiming damages from a
town for injury caused by defective highway,
should give to the selectmen OF the town within
twenty days after the accident a notice Of the
claim, stating the place and time Of the accident,
the nature OF the defect in the highway, and de-
scribing specifically the nature and extent Of the
injuries received. In the notice which the plain
tiffs gave to Berlin was the following about Mrs.
Cooleys injury and no more: 1.-THE injury afore-
said Of Emma J. Cooley was an injury to the left
knee and knee joint, causing great pain and
lameness and bruises upon the arms, legs, hands
and chest, causing lameness and soreness"
Under this notice the plaintiffs counsel proposed
to show that her spinal column had been injured
The defendant objected upon the ground that no
injury to the spinal column was mentioned Judge
Rand for the plaintiff read the medical definition
Of the thorax, or chest, which gave the spine az
one OF the boundaries OF the chest, and he claimed
that II the spine bounded the chest, II was
included therein by the term. The court ad-
mitted testimony AZ 10 the spinal injuries under
an exception by the defendant, and the case will
go to the supreme court upon this ruling 1t is
not believed by the bar generally that the ruling
will be sustained Berlin has been unfortunate
lately in litigation. 1t has paid Mrs. John voodry
siS7, Mrs. James Randall $40, and Mr.. b. P.
Young, the owner Of the team, $50, on account
OF the accident in which Mrs Cooley also suff cred
The Lizzie Alexander pauper case with Montpe-
Her. which 1t has dropped, will cost it about
500 cash down, and her support for the rest OF
her life, and Mr.. Cooley intends to sue the town
for the expenses he incurred by reason Of his
wife's illness and his loss OF her services. etc.
The last civil case in the jury calendar came to
an end very soon after the trial was begun. 1t
was between A. j. Burnham and wife and Michael
Ryan, for many years in the employ Of the Cen
trail Vermont Railroad as section boss between
this village and Montpelier Junction, and involved
the true location Of the line between their lots on
=, a.. ',,,,.
buucombe talk on the part Of the plaintiffs law
yers this claim was conceded and the trial ended.
Mike " started yesterday for Colorado, where he
10 oninu IN m enuaua in urailrnadinu - Meaara
7 % Ie.,s,e.s -, 20. ,ha .Iai,
liz ,. - So, 80 - ~ p'' nj.
H.. e. g. Ia,a.aa.,
c,s-,o- n -, =. o,,,.,., t,o,,.o, oo.,-
e., -, ,,,.,--.,-.. -.
~ y '"o ~ 90 , 90
.,'11N,-,, ,', ,., - go.
~ ~ p t', ~ Wv" l-.' -, ., -, -,
49,. :, -
,e-e p' ~, - 49, a., ~ ~. -. AZ,
.,.p. - - 80 -.,., a..
rs. IS '''-o 1919 D.' - 80
,a,' no 'ou'. ZOO .uo p,'S "ny ''neo.
De.oi' so,'s 10 f 80, ~, ny n.o.'
SIS. - ..,', 80 10 ps.'. Pr
o'S " ". p p "e o.'u .' n,"I' Up '"' y,
80. -, - -, - -, v
'"e'-' '-o'e". 'u "o '.e po''OA"' PIP
enS' ko' iuus"e"' anu so'u on 'Aoou''on'
ine ueienuan' as oons'o,e vi oafro eAeou'eu
'no p'oo'''o' ,ne p,"'n''n NJ" sue, " ie'o'o'
y" .no s''"nu' A'''' '"", 'uo '"o VI '"o p'oPo''y
nm ~ o"e' ~ so
oo.on' ,.a. .ro I 40. n.'u " p..
no''oo Vi '"o 'a'o u '"o p,'p0''y upoa oA'0uuoA
'pV' .no premises NO '"1 '"' y, vi. p,op'''!
W. p'so,' 90 .e!a1 " 'a" e u'"n'
..o''nu1 '''''' ~ wv p-' 800 - 80 ~
.no ono".y '.'a' NO. " .no n,s"""'' "nu nc
was ~ e.o 'None ~ io'poo''o''
witnesses' Inc pia'hun anu MS witnesses s"ort
there was no notice there. The Jury made W
their minds that the sale to the paintiff nv
Chanar, NOS hoo,s "a Concluded thot ~. Al.
oneuoy was oos"e' "hu 'on.'uuou I'm. INC ue'
iendant must KNOW whether ne posted the notice
or not They therefore found in his favor on Satur-
dov after an nj, n;oh,s absanca Tho caoaw tr,od
'
three years ago ny the court WITHOUT the interVen
ton Of a jury, when the plaintiff won, owing to
clerical error In the defendants return upon the
~. :, H. awo.,,.,o, ,hioh go ,,,oan r., H.
oaoA VI '"o oAoeu"o"' ""i'" "'s ii"uo Wy his
| counsel. and which showed that he posted the
the notice on the I'd of FEBRUARY, 1876, when he
,,a. Il, tao, 4, pos.o, Thu raai data ,,as Oh,
"@' =" nao' ~ DO'''N M 100. 'a'' ""' '''
1th. The supreme court granted new trial
upon the facts being shown to them. Messrs
w A and n n Rovce and G n sburtlea 10,
w. a. o.. W - - eH ~
plainuu Messrs' Heath q Carieton Tor defendant
OF the liquor cases which were set for trial
none were tried. In the cases each against Albert
n Me-, Ioaao ronhro TO-, Il U,,,a,,,
" De"oy' "e''o 0"'"uo Ns"o' H. o. "n''ooih
| and A. 5. Sparrow, the Justice OF the peace
before whom they were originally tried, Mr.. T. II
rI,.,,o,, ,,,oao 81. r,;s,aI,o ~ IA, .ooo.,. :,
'' ' 80 " w VI
setting out the oHences as peihg against chaptei
ninety-four OF the general statutes when in fact
tho aanaraI stotp,as had hacoma ohsolsto and
,ho .ou,sad .,a,r,as ,nara II Too hau;na 49,
the revised statutes were In iorce' having oeen
operative since August list, 1881. Mr.. Pitkin
moved 10 amend so as to make the records set up
the offences as being against the statutes and the
court granted the motion. The counsel for the
respondent, Albert C. Dewey excepted to the
court The other cases will await the result OF
| this.
On Monday afternoon the trial OF the case OF
| the State against William Wallace Noyes oil
Montpelier was begun. The respondent il in
dicted for the larceny and embezzlement OF ten
Of the denomination OF ten dollars each, belong.
| ing to the Montpelier National Bank On the
| 23d of NAV, 1879, the bank officers were employ.
ing several persons to go up stairs TO the office
OF the collector Of internal revenue and buy these
certificates for them The Waterman of the bank
| Andrew Hodgdon, gave the respondent package
| consisting OF 500 IS, and requested him to buy
some certificates He went to the collector
office, bought the certificates, and came down
| stairs to the sidewalk. Hodgdon asked him
for the certificates and he refused to give them
up. lie never has given them TO the bank. OF
any OF its officers, and, so far as is known, has
| them in his possession now. His excuse is that
| he kent the certificates Mt first as a Joke and
| that afterwards, owing to the opprobrious epi-
| thets which Hodgdon applied TO him, he de-
termined to keep them In earnest. The indct-
| ment contains four counts: one charges him
| he Ia. Al nd In.