The Middlebury register and Addison County journal. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1883-1885, 1884-12-19
Addison County Court.
CLOSE OF THE TERM-THE BUSHES,
DONE


The December term of the Addison
county court. Judge Veazcy presiding
closed on Wednesday afternoon. There
were but two cases tried by jury. One was
l.. C.Partch VS.. S.A.Spooncr. in which. as
stated last week. a verdict was rendered
for the plaintiff for $3.50 and costs.
Ira Tucker ct al vs.. f. Lawrence ct al.
the other case tried by jury, was an ac-
ton of trespass, and was begun on
Thursday afternoon and given to the
jury on Saturday morning. This case
had been III court long time. The plain
tiffS, Ira Tucker and DGnicl Durfee. in
1879 by decree of the court of chancery
became the owners of quantity of saw
mill machinery. +. G.. Hunt. one of the
defendants. was directed by his father
in-law, +. Lawrence. who died some four
years ago. to write letter to .. Dan
forth, of the firm of Bentley Il Danforth,
in which DanfOrth was told to remove
the machinery from one mill to another
in the town of RiptOn. The machinery
was removed in obedience to the order
contained in the letter. 1t was claimed
by Mr.. Hunt that he countermanded the
order. Mr.. Wilds made the opening ar
gument for the plaintiff Friday afternoon
and was followed by a. p. Upper and
bcO' IL Law cuCt LOT lilt uclcDSc. l.. l..
Durant closing for the plaintiff The
iury's verdict was that the defendant
Hunt recover his costs, and for the plain
tifls as against defendant Danforth for
S22.9O and costs.
The jury was then. just before noon of
Saturday. discharged for the term.
From Saturday noon till adjournment
the time of the court was occupied with
hearing divorce cases. the disposal of
State cases. etc.
The State cases were disposed of as
follows: State vs.. John Ryan of Yer
genncs, apt. liquor. States Attorney
Hawkins stated that an important wit
ness could not be found. and that the
same trouble was experienced at the
June term. and asked for a continuance
which was granted.
State VS.. John O'Connor of Nergennes
apt. liquor The bonds. 500 in each of
the two cases against this respondent.
were called and forfeited. Mr.. Gran
dey's motion in the first case to CHANGER
the bond was denied.
State vs.. John w. Ryan of Vergennes.
apt, liquor The bonds (S5O) were call
ed and forfeited.
State VS.. Richard Maldoon of YER
gennes, apt. liquor. The bonds $50
were called and forfeited. A motion by
Mr.. Grandey to CHANGER the bond to the
amount of the fine and the costs below
and in county court. was denied Re
spondent had been found guilty by the
justice of one first offence and fined SO
and costs. $50.
State VS.. Nellie Barrows of Middle
bury. apt. assault. In this case. it will
be remembered, Mrs. Barrows was adj
judged guilty of the offence charged. and
by Justice j. E. Stapleton was fined $50
and costs. In county court Judge Knapp.
respondents counsel, moved the dismis-
sal of the case on the ground that the
fine was greater than Justice of the
peace is empowered to impose. The mo-
ton was denied and the case goes to the
Supreme court for decision ON this point.
The court stated that it had been the
practice to consider such power in the
hands of justices. at the same time init
mating that their opinion might not agree
with the practice. However, they pre-
ferred that the Supreme court consider
the point.
State VS.. Lewis Butler of Bristol apt.
liquor. The States attorney said thi.
was a disclosure case and the witness
could not be found. 1t was continued.
State VS.. John ii. Sargent of Middle
bury, liquor. plea of guilty of one
ofiense as of the first conviction was ac
cepted by the prosecution and the Gus
tomary fine of SO and costs imposed. Ii
was paid.
State VS.. John W. jackson of Yer
gennes, apt. liquor. The bonds (Sl00
were called and forfeited.
State VS.. Geo. McCue of Mddiebury
apt. liquor. Bonds called and forfeited
State VS.. Brunette a Nisun. apis.
liquor. In this case motion TO dismiss
was made by c. NJ. Wids, who alleged
that the appeal papers We're defective
The motion was denied and the prosccu
ton given leave to amend. After TIN
amendment had been effected the motion
was renewed on the same ground ant
again denied. The Supreme court vii
rule upon the matter, the responder
taking exceptions. The question invOlv
ed is whether the appeal papers whicl
the statutes provide tor in cases of dis
closure contain sufficient allegations. OF
which to base IA complaint.
State VS.. Joseph Broullctt of Middle
bury, apt. liquor. Bond called and for
feited.
State VS.. Solomon Dushang. This wa
an information for larceny filed by til
States attorney. Respondent plcade
not guilty to the charge-of stealing
watch and a revolver of Henry Kendall
of Salisbury in June last. On account o
the illness of the States principal wit
ness, the case was continued and Du,
hang released on his own recognzancC
State VS.. Edward Stow of Middlebury
apt. liquor. Stow was disclosed upo
for furnishing liquor. The States al
torney said the chief witness was state
to be notorious liar, one on whose te;
timOny conviction was impossible; an
he asked that noiprOS. be entered
which was done.
State VS.. Freeman j. James of Starks
boro, apt; liquor. Respondent in Al
gust, 1888, pleaded guilty to $50 offence
of selling Liquor and was fined $50
and costs. Not procuring bail, he wa
jailed and remained in confinement fo
L.. 1