Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1882-04-12
Washington County Court.

hdohdhs toh Nuuutl Nodi''
The March term of Washington county
court closes to-day, having been in session
at various tines four weeks aud two days.
The divorce case OF Alvin z. Cummings
of Berlin against Bridget Cummings, for
willful dcsertion was continued.
In the case of Byron L. Wilbur of CAL
ais against Eva l.. Wilbur, the petitioner
was ordered to file specification giving
the times. places and persons with whom
the petitionee's acts of adultery arc
alleged 10 have been committed, and be-
fore the 18th instant TO pay tho pctitionee
twenty dollars alimony.
The following divorce eases were dis
continued
Samuel Austin Of Warren against Re-
becca Austin of Waitslield; George A..
Atkins of Warren against Lucina a. At.
kius Of Waitslicld; Dennis Durham OF
Marshiield against Nctlie J.. Durham OF
Ely, and Chester Powers of Moretown
against Eliza Powers of Barre.
The following divorces were granted;
Libbie Il Baldwin of Chester from Ara
A. Baldwin, formerly Of Ludlow, now OF
Rockford. Winnebago County, H., for
wilful desertion, and the custody of her
child, Monte A. Baldwin, given to the
petitioner; Frank W. Russell of Cabot
from Ella Russell of Irassurgh. for adnl-
terry Kate L.Ovitt Of Cabot from Curtis IL.
0vitt of Jay, for adultery and willful de-
sertion.
The following disposition of the "ium
cases 5" was made:
Joseph Gravlin of Montpelier pleaded
guilty of lone first olfense," and was
fined ten dollars and costs; IL. II. Bishop,
formerly keeper of the Waterbury Hotel,
but now of Bolton, had his bonds cut
down to 500, and they were forfeited
the bonds of J. 4 Locklin of Montpelier
having been cat down from 300 to Sl0O
they were forfeited.
4 Judgment of Sl,38S.7S was rendered
in favor of the plaintiff in the ease Of A
o. Cummins of Montpelier, administrator
of the estate of Henry NJ. Cummns
against Lathrop Lewis. This was an
action TO recover the face and interest o
a note given by the defendant to the intcs
tate.
II. II. Worlhen and wife Of Barre
against Ransom Dickey CT al of Orange
has come back from the supreme court fol
new trial. The case which was tried il
| the county court, September term, 1879
resulted in verdict of $1,100 in favor o
the plaintiff. Mrs. Worthen is n daughter
of Orrin Eastman, deceased, who wa
= also her guardian, and tho defendants wer
, his bondsmen. The suit was brought t
| recover the amount of the legacy whiCl
D her father as her guardian had in charge
, The defendants having pleaded only TIN
: general issue, but during the trial the.
+ offered testimony to show partial pay
; ment Of the claim.
D The plaintiffs objected 10 this on tn
| ground that such partial payment shoul'
4 have been pleaded specially, or set out il
Q no ice of special matter in defense
a Judge Redlield sustained the plaintiff
f objection and refused to admit the tosti
b mony. The supreme court has ruled tia
f the statute on which the plaintiffs relic
= to establish their EXPERIMENTATION Il
= chapter 80 OF the general statutos-doe
o not apply to partial payments, becaus
C they do not extinguish the debt. Counst
i. for plaintiff arc Messrs. S. G. Shurtle
e and J. A. Wing for defendants, Messrs
s | A. NJ. Dickey and Clarence H Pitkin.
}, Hiram Atkins against Dan Ducell
Y came before tho court upon demurre
4 filed by the defendant to the sufllcienoy {
. tho plaintiffs replication. The defendan
a Snowman, induced the plaintiff to Civ
him credit for largo amount of printer
o work. and then behaved in a way whic
IL indicated strong desire to beat" Th
= plaintiff sued, and recovered S295.03 Th
I defendant was out of the state at the tim
9 thit suit was brought, so that no persons
: service was made, and pending the deci
u ion he went into bankruptcy. In hi
G schedule of Indebtedness he made n
g mention Of tho plaintiff claim; but L
< was finally discharged from the bankrupt
u cy court. The present suit is founde
d upon the judgment which the painli
:, formerly recovered. as above mentione,
rho defendant pleads the discharge
y bankruptcy as defense. The plaintiff
q former counsel, G. j Gleason, drew
d replication in which were allegations
Z law and fact, and the defendant demurre
q The court sustained tho demurrer; b
II gave the plaintiff leave TO repload. Jol
A. e. Wing argued the question of the rep
% cation in behalf Of the plaintiff; AT
10 Clarence II. Pitkin appeared for the d
PENDANT.