The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1884-12-24
Orange County Court.

The December term of this court opened
on the 10th instant, at ten O'Clock in the
forenoon, Hon. j. w. Rowell presiding
Judge, and Hon. Joseph Tebbetts and Hon.
Cyrus U. Lathrop, assistant judges. Rev.
Mr.. Herrick made the opening prayer, and
after the formal announcement OF the sheriff,
the business OF the term commenced. The
petit jurors in attendance were called,
sworn, and received the charge of the presid-
ing judge in relation to the proper discharge
of their duties. The following gentlemen
were present to serve as jurors: Bradford,
Thomas johnson (excused) and w. A. Lib
hey; Brantree, William Il. Hubbard and
Henry G. Vinton; Brookfeld, J. w. Parm-
enter and Frank II. Newell; Chelsea,
Daniel Burnham and Edison Titus; Corinth,
L. f. Locke and g. w. Tenney; Fairlee,
William p. Garfield and w. II. Gilmore;
Newbury Erastus Baldwin, Jr. (excusedD
and Frank Kimball; Orange, Grin Hutchins
and Raymond p. Camp; Randolph, Noah
Clark and A. w Emery (excused) STAFFORD,
William II. Hayes and Oscar A. Clogston;
Thetford, William A. Dodge and G. M. EN-
erson; Topsham, G. 2. Simpson and Calvin
Mills; Tunbridge, James e. Riddall; Yer
shire, Orison Maltby and John II. Gilman;
Washington, f. V. Jeffords and j. w.
White; West Fairlee, John w. Mum and
William l.. Godfrey; Williamstown, Frank
X. Martin and George Crane.
There were thirty-three cases on the jury
calendar, but when these were called meme
Colonel A. NJ Dickey and Mr.. Chamberlain,
both being unable to leave their homes,
necessitated the continuance of some of the
first cases in order on the calendar. The
case of Roadway us. Roadway, the eighth in
order, in which a trial was expected not
being in readiness, counsel agreed to refer
ii to John II. Watson. The failure OF this
case caused a stampede, and the case of
Sanborn, Executor Us. Farmers Mutual
Fire Insurance Company, seventeenth on
the 1Qt rpapbpu This IL
stated, would be ready for Thursday.
Rather than detain the court, counsel set
it not for the jury. 1t being apparent that
no case was left for jury trial, court went
in at half-past one, P. M, and the jurors
were discharged for the term.
Wednesday morning the court business
was taken up, and cases disposed of in
their order. OF the thrty-odd cases set for
trial by the jury, six were settled or discon-
tinued. Among those in the last category
was Ely-Ely Goddard Us. r. NJ. f. Cain, an
action for libel growing out Of the troubles
at the Ely copper mines, of which Cain
was manager.
Pursuant to the recommendation of the
Vermont Bar Association, and the action OF
the supreme court at its general term, aim
ing at uniformity in practice in the several
counties, the court announced the adoption
OF what is known as the new rules" and
on and after May LIST next those rules will
prevail in this county court. The following
are the cases tried by the court:
p. E. & w. l.. Crafts Us. Henry b. WHITE
The plaintiffs are brothers and reside at
Bradford. In May, 1888, the defendant, as
tax collector Of Topshan, sold yoke of
oxen owned by the plaintiffs to satisfy a
claim for taxes amounting to S4.31 The
oxen were bid in by one Burrows, acting
for the plaintiffs, at 800. After applying
the S24.31, the collector paid the balance to
the plaintiffs. In seeking to justify as an
officer, the defendant introduced testimony
to show that plaintiffs owned store and
tenement building in Topsham; no inven-
tory was put in by them, and the listers
doubled the tax assessed on said store and
tenement. Various Irregularities in making
up the tax were claimed by the plaintiffs, but
the main question relied upon by the plant
ifs, and upon which the case turned, was
who was in possession of the property on the
LIST day of April, 1882 when the tax was laid
upon the plaintiffs. The title to the prem
ises had been on e. NJ. Collins and wife,
plaintiffs had mortgage thereon, which
was foreclosed, and the equity of redemp-
ton expired with the list day of April. DIR.
Watson, who took charge of the premises
for the plaintiffs, swore that it was on the
4th of April he received the key thereof
and, in support of his testimony, he pro-
duced diary containing an entry to that
effect. The defendant introduced testi-
mony tending to show that the key was
delivered up on April LIST. The court found
the fact as sworn to by the witness, Watson,
and gave Judgment for plaintiffs in the sum
of S2431, with interest thereon from May
oath, 1888. John H. Watson for plaintiffs;
r. M. Harvey and j. X. Darling for de-
PENDANT.
John Sprague vs. Royal Abbott, Jr.-This,
also, was a tax case. The plaintiff, in an
action of trover, sought to recover the value
of two shares of stock in the Randolph
Bank. These shares of bank stock We're
levied upon by the defendant to satisfy un-
paid taxes on property in the town of Brook
field The nlaiDtitf in making his in
ventory, had included therein certain pieces
OF land, occupied by tenants, to whom plant
if had given a bond for deed. The list
ers decided that the inventory was inaccu-
rate, and, disregarding 1t, went to the sew
eral occupants Of the farms in question to
ascertain from them what they claimed to
owe the plaintiff. The sums so ascertained
were then added to the plaintiffs ratable
property, and he was taxed thereon and
doubled. The plaintiff relies upon irregu-
larities on the part of the listers in perform
ing their duty; he also claims that they
were actuated by malice in doubling "
him; he also claims that the persons occupy
ing the farms referred to were not " solvent
debtors" within the meaning of the act.
The case is with the court, and judgment
will probably be entered for the plaintiff,
for the reason that the state tax had been
made up on the wrong list. f. V. Randall
and N l.. Boyden for defendants g. ii.
Heath and S. b. Hebard for plaintiff
Victor L. Spear, Executor of Rosana Leath-
ers' Will Us. Ira A. Thayer and Wife, APP
pellants.-This was an appeal from the judg-
ment of the probate court for the district
of Randolph. The female defendant is a
daughter of Rosana feathers, deceased.
The latter made will, leaving a certain
amount of property to her daughter, during
the time the husband of the daughter was
alive, and certain other and larger sum,
in case the daughter should be left widow,
or should from any cause cease to be the
wife of the defendant. The contestants, de-
string to obtain the larger sum in any case,
tried to set the will aside, claiming it was
against public policy, in that it offered
premium for divorce or deserton. The
counsel for the proponant insisted that the
will should stand. AS long as the daughter
had husband to take care of her, she re-
ceived so much; if from any cause she was
deprived of the support of husband, she
was to receive so much more. This, it was
urged, was thoughtful and kind provision
of the testator, and should be upheld. The
court was of the latter opinion, and affirmed
the judgment of the probate court sustain
ing the validity of the will. Perrin & Nc
Vain and Denisons for the proponant; n.
l.. Boyden for contestants.
Divorce cases, as under, were tried and
disposed of as stated:
Elyira Sanborn Us. Ellison e. Sanborn.-
Bill granted for intolerable severity and
neglect and refusal to support. The parties
lived at West Randolph and, later, at Chel-
sea, and were married in 1877. q. III. Heath