Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1883-05-23
VERMONT wATCHMAN & STATE JO1
Washington County Supreme Court.


m Tuesday, the 10Th inst, came to an end last
saturday at noon, the session having lasted four
lays and a half. The docket contains ffty-fve
'ases; Of these four had been heard at previous
erms, one Is enjoned, sixteen were heard at this
ERIN, two were discontinued without costs, two
we're continued to the next May term Of the court,
were continued TO the general term
Df the supreme court which will be held next DC
tober and November, and two were transferred
10 the next August term Of the Lamoille county
supreme court. The members Of the bars Of
other counties present WERE Hon. A. q. Stafford
Of Burlington, Henry A. Harmon, Esq, OF Ben
nagton; Joel O.. Baker. Esq, Of Rutland; Hon
Richard T. Parker Of wolcott, L. D. Hathaway,
Esq, Of South Hardwick; Colonel Y, B.. Sawyer
Of Hydepark. The more important and interest
Ing cases heard, or decided, were as follows:
THE CHAPMAN INSURANCE cAsE
Isaac M. Trip and Theron o. Bailey, admins
traitors OF the estate OF George X Chapman, Us.
the Vermont Life Insurance Company. This case
has been In court since 1873. 1t was tried In the
Washington county court at the September term,
1879, and was argued three times In the supreme
court-at the August term, 1880 at the general
term 1884, and at the general term, 1882. The
judges are said TO be divided upon the proper way
Of bringing the case: whether in the name OF the
beneficiary OF the policy Of insurance, OF In the
name OF the administrator. Of which more below.
The action was brought upon policy OF insur-
ance In the defendant company for $1,000, upon
the life OF George X. Chapman OF Vergennes for
the benefit Of his mother Clara Nj. Chapman OF
Hannibal, Missouri. Mr.. Chapman died on the
4th Of January, 1873, and the company refused
payment. Suit having been brought II appeared
that their defense rested upon two principal
grounds: ~ That Chapman had failed TO pay his
premiums when they were due and particularly
the last one, which was due on the oath OF July
1877, and was unpaid at the time OF his death (2)
that the suit should have been brought in the
name OF Clara NJ. Chapman, the beneficiary OF
the policy, instead of in the name OF the admins
~ Char ,antu atata Tha pttr a,r&
Judge Redfeld presiding, overruled the second
point as matter OF law and on the frat point, Ii
was claimed by the PLAINTIFF counsel that the
company had waived the requirement OF payment
when due, and the court left that question to the
Jury The Jury promptly found In favor Of
the plaintiff for the full amount OF the policy,
interest and costs, and the supreme court now
affirm the judgment OF the county court.
The testimony before the jury showed that Mr..
Chapman's relations with the company were
somewhat peculiar He was their local agent at
yergennes until his death, and had been since the
organization of the company In 1869, aud the
secretary, Mr.. Warren Gibbs, was accustomed to
send him the renewal receipts for premiums due
from policy-holders In his agency, in order that
he might collect them, the receipts for the pre-
miums on his own policy among the rest. When
they were sent they were charged to him on the
bookslof the company, and when the moneys were
returned they were credited to him. By the
terms Of his policy 1t was void II the semi-annual
premiums were not paid on the day they were
due; but it was proved that they never had been
paid when due-generally not for several months
afterwards-and yet the policy had never been
declared nor treated as void. AT the time the
last premium became due-July "a, 1877-Chap-
man was In Milwaukee on bridal tour, from
which he did not return to Vergennes until Sep
TENDER, and payment was not requested until
after he had got home. The plaintiffs claimed
that the company had treated the whole thing as
book account, by charging the premiums to him
on the ledger and not as such transactions are
ordinarily treated between the company and the
insured and that their repeated failure to enforce
the forfeiture clause, and particularly In regard
to the last duo premium amounted to q waiver
thereof, and that Chapman had good reason
to believe that they had waived 1t and 40 acted.
In regard to who should be made the plaintiffs,
counsel for the plaintiffs drew the attention Of
the court to clause in the policy which said
that by the terms OF this policy the company
agreed 90 pay George r. Chapman, his heirs, etc.
the amount insured on the oath of July, 1913, II
he should be living; and II he should die before
that, they agreed with him, his heirs ETC., to pay
the sum for which he was insured to his mother
The plaintiffs claimed that the agreement being
with Chapman, his heirs, executors or assigns
that the insurance should be paid to his mother
1t was for the administrators (who stand in the
place OF executors with whom the agreement was
made) to bring the suit, rather than for the bene
ficiary who was not party to the agreement. A
majority OF the court took this view. Mr.
Charles W. Porter for the plaintiff Messrs r
s. Taft and Daniel Roberts for the defendants.
RUM CASE
State Us. Albert c. Dewey. The respondent
formerly kept rum-shop in Montpelier, but /.
now resident Of Dakota. On the 10Th OF Sep
TENDER, 1881, during the state fair at this place
Henry z. Smith OF Burlington was arrested fol
drunkenness and disclosed - that he had go
his rum Of the respondent. On the first day o.
the preceding August the general statutes hat
been superseded by the revised laws, and at tn,
timp NJ thia If air tho VIC ohuola ta NJ
the latter were in force. Mr.. P. H. Hnckley, wht
was then justice OF the peace, was not aware o.
this circumstance, and he issued a warran
against the respondent in which 1t was ALLEGED
that he had committed an offense against III,
provisions OF chapter ~ OF the general statutes
Vermont relative to the traffic In Intoxicating
drinks, instead of alleging, as II ought, that tn,
offense was against the law relative to the traff
in intoxicating liquor. When the case got to tn,
county court, the respondents counsel, Mr.
George W. Wing moved that the complaint o.
warrant, be quashed upon the grounds abov,
named. The states attorney, Mr.. Clarence Ii
Pitkin. moved to amend by striking out the word
Z" of chapter VI " and general" which woult
utes OF Vermont" Judge Redtied oyerruled tn
motion to qnash and allowed the amendment
The supreme court now decide that the motion +
quash WAS properly overruled because chapter 0
has continued in force by reenactment in the re
vised laws and the warrant fully appraised tn
respondent OF the nature of the charge of whicl
he was accused, As the warrant was good befor
the amendment, the respondent suffered no wronl
The respondent was sentenced on Saturday to pa
fine OF $40 and costs, being guilty OF one frs
offence" Three or four other cases. in whicl
Mr. Hinckley made the same mistake, have bee
awaiting the decision on this, and the respondent
will now have to "step up to the captains ofilc
and settle"
DIVORCE CASE AS Is DIVORCE CASE.
Orila Foster by next frend) Us. William Foste
OF al.-This case, for variety OF incident peculiar
ity Of parties and length of life, and for othe
reasons too numerous to. mention, stands at tn
head of al. the divorce cases which have plague,
the courts Of Vermont. A Dickens could hardl
do justice to its history, and in the present artcl
nothing but q brief sketch will be attempted
Orilla Foster, previous to her marriage with tn
defendant, was the widow of AFRO Nelson, a shoe
maker In Hardwick. and had three or four chi
dren begotten by him. William Foster was
rich widower, residing on farm in Middesex
not far from Montpelier village. He was tn
father Of several children (most Of them Of age
by his first wife On the 10th of May, 1863 the
were married Both were, and are, ugly in TEN
per, and he was, and IL, one OF the most disa
greeable misers in the country As Judge Red
field said, in some comments from the bench |
the course OF the divorce suit, he was man VIII
sold all Of the best potatoes he raised fed to tn
hogs what Of the remainder they would eat an
allowed his family what the hogs refused. |
brought forth twins, a boy aud girl. Theme
they quarreled until the Goth Of January, 1871
when she began proceedings for divorce, an
Foster began TO put his property out Of his hand
and give 1t to his children by his first wife. II
owned farms in Moretown, Middlesex, Williams
town and Hardwck, notes and mortgages, Of a
OF which he stripped himself except some pastur
land In Williamstown. without building thereon
| and some five thousand dollars in notes. ii
| even gave away his homestead In Middlesex /
/ hia dauVhfpr ChQaiina KibbAA The yalua
the property he gave away Is estimated ut twenty
| eight thousand dollars, and he only left littl
more than five thousand dollars with which I
| support himself, his wife and the twins. Judg
Redheld granted an Injunction to restrain hiI
| from dispOsing OF his property, and also ordere
| him to pay to his wife certain sums as temporar
| alimony. Some OF the orders for temporary al
mony he complied with, others he did not. III
/ divorce case was tried at the March term OF I'll
/ Washington county court, 1871 and the court d,
| gave the parties some good advice about maxim
| up. Some more orders for temporary allmon
| having been made, which Foster didn't wish I
| comply with, by the advice Of his counsel, Mr. Z
| j. Deayitt, he left the country and stayed
| Canada for some time. Meanwhile Mr. Deavi
| brought an application for a mandamus TO II
i supreme court, alleging that at the previor
/ March term OF Washington county court II
| judges had refused divorce, and asking the 81
prone court to order the county court to procee
| to Judgment, In accordance with such decision
| The mandamus was refused by the suprem
| court At the ensuing march term (l6IS) II
| court granted a divorce to Mrs. Foster for into
| cradle severity, gave her the custody OF the twin
and ten thousand dollars in cash as alimon.
| which should be charge and lien on the re
| estate which he had decided away Five thol
sand dollars Of this was to be for the support
the petitioner, to be enjoyed in her own RICH
and i've thousand dollars to be placed In trust Il
the children in equal shares Foster did not con
ply with the order and at the September term