Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1883-01-19
THE LAW OF THE LAND.

pages, is now before us. we rcliain iron
commenting upon its external appearance
and pass TO n brief review of portion of il!
contents. The relations OF guardians to thci
wards are considered in three cases. Wad,
VS.. Pulsfcr decides that a gift from ware
to guardian is voidable. In lIendce VS.
Cleveland, it is held that sale from guard
ian to ward can not be defended on The
ground of good faith. Public policy, the
court says, requires the door TO be shu
against the temptation inherent in such trans
actions In Barney VS.. Parsons, the liabili
ties and duties of guardians are discussed il
4 somewhat general way. In this STATE
guardians are held to the exercise of goot
sense as well as good faith.
| Nine cases arose under the old highway
law Surely it is well that the gate was shu
down in 1880. In these cases the towns Of
Londonderry Nottingham, Cabot, Fair
haven, Ira, Brattleboro, Stowe, Swantor
and Lyndon, figure as defendants with vail
ons fortunes To read the notices of in
juries sustained gives one u vivid idea OF The
tcrrors of highway travel in the era which
has recently closed.
Stone VS.. Small is in brief the name of the
mandamus cBse which upset the brilliant
scheme of n lew of our Winooski nclghbors
to keep themselves perpetualy in office with.
out the inconvenience Of re elections. Oul
readers are familiar with the facts relative
to this inglorious venture, and with the ap.
plici'ion of the law male by the court.
Clarke VS.. Clarkes estate should serve as q
warning to prospective lcgitocs. Two on,
of the three witnesses to will were named
in it as bcncficiaiies. The bequcst TO one is
declared void and that to the other is only
saved by the fact that she was heir at law as
well as lcgaicc. This is simply the applica-
ton of plain provision OF the statutes.
Shaw VS.. Carpenter, Burlington case, was
a foreclosure of II mortgage given to secure
notes the consideration for which was in part
intoxicating liquor. The notes were in the
hands of an innocent holder. The value of
the liquor was asccltalnablc and the court
dccrccd foreclosure for the amount Of The
legal debt. Two of the court dsscntcd hold
ing that the whole transaction was vltialed
| by the sale of the liquor. This case contains
| a conservative definition Of what is meant by
place of public resort in the statute forbid
ding the sale of cider at such place. The
special master to whom the case was refer
red asccltaincd the interesting fact that lager
beer is not intoxicating.
The law of Hill VS.. Cox is tia, the owner
of dangerous dog who lets the animal run
at large may thereby be guilty of such wilful
and malicious conduct ms 10 subject him to II
close Jail execution. Rcmcle VS.. Donahue is
also dog case and the sautary law therein
upon flock Of sheep in concert, each dog
renders his owner liable unbr our statute for
the entire amount of the damage. A merely
vicious dog is sufficiently undesirable piece
of property, but dog which is at once vi
cious and greGaiious may well inspire his
owner with untasiness.
In Dudley vs.. Mckenzie, the plaintiff
sought to recover eighty penalties OF the de-
flock of eighty sleep and detained them
three days without giving notice The stat
ute provides penalty of fifty cents day
for SO OBTAINING beast but the court held
atty and affirmed the judgment below, which
fixed the damages at one dollar and fifty
cents. Thus the plaintiffs vision of sudden
wealth was but imperfectly realized.
The case of Robinson VS.. Frost contri-
bu,cs something to the law with reference TO
the state of matrimony A husband was of
full age but OF unsound mind and without IL
guardian. The wife asserted her right lof
extent of having her agents enter the fathers
house and remove her husband iherefrom in
the face Of active resistance on the part of
the father. In this course she was sustained
came under consideration in Willard VS..
Dow. The decision is that a dclusion or
monOmania docs not necessarily affect the
capacity to do business, but that where abcr-
ration of mind is pointed to by the testi-
mony, the question of capacity must go to
the jury. The widespread prevalence of
crankinoss is happily recognized in the opin-
ion delivered in this case.
State VS.. Robert Meadcr, which relates to
a point of practice OF interest only TO the lc-
gal profession, exhibits a somewhat extreme
divergence of Interpretation and opinion on
the part of the members of the court. In |
the opinion of the court, delivered by Judge |
Powers, the rule Of practice laid down is |
declared to be 'thc settled law in this Statc'
and number of cases are cited as establish
ing or affirming it. Judge Royce, in an able |
dissenting opinion, given out of place, on |
page 65l, maintains that not single one of |
the authorities cited in the principal case
supports the rule there laid down, but that
they are all directly or practically in con-
flict with it," lie also cites as inconsistent
with the position of the majority
the Vermont Reports and cloud
of authorities from the decisions of sister
States. Whether or not the position of Judge
Royce is well taken we leave for the men,
bers of the bar 10 discuss.
The great case of Langdon VS.. The Rail-
road company OF course overshadows all
others in importance and interest," but with
this we have already familiarzed our read
ers The head notes in this case were pre-
pared not by the reporter but by Judge Red
field, who delivered the opinion. The num-
Der of cases reported in this volume is one
hundred and twenty-seven. OF these, fifty
were heard at the general term-a larger