Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1882-02-08
Two Important Hearings.

As was indicated in our last issue, two suits
involving large interests, were heard here on
Wednesday and Thursday Of last week, before
Judges Powers and Veazey.
One was had ut the Office Of s. G. Shurtlef,
Esq. before the frst-named Judge as special
master. The proceeding was in chancery, and
the parties were o. M. Morrill, and J. p Lamson,
orators and the Barre Bank and the Administra-
tors of b. w. Braley's Estate. defendants The
orators bill was for the specific performance of
contract entered into between themselves and b.
W. Braley, president and director Of the Barre
Bank, for, and in behalf OF, the bank; also for
relief, under the same contract, from the payment
of certain notes held by the st. Johnsbury Bank,
and which they had signed as streties, but which
they claimed 1t was the duty Of the defendants,
under the contract TO pay. The amount involved
is some $4,000. The defence is denial OF
Braley's authority to make such contract for the
bank and that II Is therefore not bound The
hearing was not concluded, but was adjourned to
the Goth Of February. Messrs. S. G. Shurtleff and
l.. l., Durant appeared for the orators, Heath &
Carleton for the defendant bank, and II. W. Hea-
ton for the administrators Of Braey's estate.
The other was a suit at law for damages for an in
jury resulting from the insuiciency Of the highway
leading from Montpelier to the Coffee house, on
the northerly side Of the river. The parties were
Robinson Templeton of Williamstown, plaintiff,
and the town Of Montpelier, defendant. The ac-
cident happened on the eth OF December, 1873,
and suit was brought to the Orange county court
at the next June term At the same term in 1880
the case was tried before jury, Judge Powers
presiding. After the evidence was all in, It APP
pearing from the plaintiffs case that the cause of
accident was the headlight Of passing locomo-
tive, the Judge ruled the remote cause Of the &C
cdent being outside the limits of the highway,
the plaintiff could not recover even though the
highway was insufficient and out of repair, and
ordered a verdict for the defendant. Exceptions
were taken by the plaintiff, and the supreme
court reversed the judgment Of the county court,
and remanded the cause for a new trial. 1t was
referred to Judge veazey by agreement of parties,
and heard at the office of C. IL. Pitkin, Esq. The
defense urged that the accident did not happen
where the plaintiff now claims 1t did, and that the
plaintiff was guilty Of contributory negligence IL
passing over the road at the time and in the way
he did, knowing that he should probably meet
train but that he should have crossed the Pioneer
bridge and gone up on the other side of the river
thus avoiding the possibility Of meeting the train
| The plaintiff claimed that the road over which he
went was the best and safest road that his horse
was safe horse and one accustomed to be about
the cars; that the road was an open public high
way, and that his not taking the other road under
such circumstances was not per Sc negligence.
| The defense also introduced some evidence to
show that the plaintiff was intoxicated before
leaving Montpelier. This evidence the plaintiff
| controverted and produced considerable proof
that he was sober instead of drunk The defense
also reserved some questions on the suiiciency Of
the notice. The referee will probably make his
report during the present month. W. A. Lord. S.
b. Hebard and Hiram A. Huse appeared for the
plaintiff, and c. H. Pitkin and G. W. Wing fol
| the defendant