Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1885-11-13
THE SUPREME COURT.
The Case of NewoI W.. the Town of Whit
inghan-Ihe ijcnch not yet EiIled.

taxpayer i'll the town Of Nottingham IN
the spring of 1881 when the tax law OF 80
iirst went INTO effect. When the listers
called on Newell he, with their assistance
made out his list and presented it to the
listers and signifed his readiness to take
Tue oath but the listers on examining the
inventory, found that Newell had inter
lined in the printed oath the words "to
my best wishes and belief" The listers
refused to accept the inventory with the
oath so interlined Newell refused to
erase the interlIneation. The listers then
proceeded to ascertain the amount of
NeWells property, aud doubled the
amount 50 obtained and used that sum as
the bases on which TO assess Newell's tax
lax was assessed accordingly and, on
NeWelis refusing payment, his personal
properly was attached and sold at auction
to satisfy the same
This suit was brought by Newell to re-
cover the amount 50 collected of him.
The point to be decided in this court is
whether the words "to my best knowledge
ana belief" as interlined by the
plalntlil. Were such change
III the form Of the oath provided by law
hat the listers were not bound to accept
the inventory. The case was argued by
Z. Il. Eddy, Esq, for the plaintiff and 10y
/
town OF Nottingham.
Court was III session i'll the after
noon with four jud yes on the bench
Powers, Taft and Walker, judges, not
having yet arrived,
Some Important Ca.es-Orange County
Next in Line.
The argument in the Supreme Court of
the case of Eleazer b. Baldwin VS. Sarah
y. Parkhu st, Charles Parkhurst and
Harry Parkhurst was concluded Tues
day. This is II chancery case, coming up
from Windsor county, wherein the plain
tiff seeks to hold the defendants equity
of redemption in II certain farm, situated
in the town of Sharon and occupied by
defendants, Sarah \. and Charles Park
hurst. The property has been conveyed
away and stands upon the records of the
town of Sharon in the name Of Il third
person, but plaintiff claims that the con
vcyance was not bOHd tdC and that de-
PENDANTS have still an interest which may
/ he reached by creditors of the defendants.
/ The case was argued by Lamb Il Tarbell
for plaintiff and by Stephen NJ. pingree
and Warren G. French, Esqs, for de-
PENDANTS.
The last case from Windsor county is a
petition for foreclosure brought by the OF
taqucchee Savings bankYs. Benz, Holt and
others. The mortgage of the bank COW
cred several pieces of land. In the court
| below decree was granted in accordance
| with the prayer of the bill and defendants
/ allowed in appeal. The argument for the
defense in this court is on behalf of
Nathan Il. Holt only, the bill having been
confessed as to the other defendants. This
defendant WAS to have i'm interest in certain
parts of the land in question by virtue of
Il deed, the consideration of which was
the support by him, during their lives, of
! Nathan Holt and Louisa Holt. He claims
further that the bank has sufficient Sc
curity exclusive of that portion of the
land in which he claims an interest
The argument was made for plaintiff by
Warren Z. French, Esq the argument
for defendant by Herman Holt of the New
Hampshire bar. Gilbert \. Davis, Esq.
will close for the bank.
Orange county comes next i'll order
There are several cases from this county
/ owing to the TACT that no term of the Su
preme Court has been held there during
the last year, 50 the business all comes VI
to this term.
\ full bench was sitting Tuesday
Eight Cases from Orange county Disposed
of-Particulars of the Cases.
In the supreme Court at Montpelier the
business Of Orange county was reached
about p. m. Tuesday, and since tina
time eight cases have been disposed Of
Corhs and Way W.. IIilas Grow had beel
heard before and stands "with court
Rosalia \. Hartman vs.. Frederick II
Hartman - to be treated as Il "mis-entry >
In the case of Ira +. Rowrll VS.. Elizabetl
\. Hayes. the judgment of the court be
low is affirmed without argument Roya
Durham vs.. town Of STAFFORD was tn
first Orange county case heard. RUya
Buruham was, at the time of the tlansac
ton out Of which this litigation grew, on
of the seleCtmen for the town of Stanford
lie claims to recover for $500 paid by hin
, to the town treasurer while SO acting a
selectman. In the trial below the defend
: ant town brought forward as witness
the treasurer who testified from the book
that he had never received any such none
from the plaintiff There was no sucl
entry On his books. The plaintiff then of
iered to show that at other times the treas
urer had received money for tn
/ town which was never entere
on the books. The plaintiff object
ed to the evidence and the cour
: refused to admit it. TO this ruling of tn
! court the plaintiff excepted. The questio
! before the Supreme Court is whether tn
J. court below ruled correctly in refusing t
> admit the evidence. The case was argue
. by Clark and Dickey, Esqs., for Burnhan
! and by c. II. Heauh, Esq, for the towr
l In Gilman W. Brown and wife VS.. DAME
; c. White, the judgment of the court belo'
i is affirmed.
!. a. NJ Carpenter vs.. town of Coriut
I was an action to recover damages for il
u jury alleged to have been received by III
Z plaintiff because of Il defect in the higl
/ way over which he was driving his horst
/ at the time the injury was received.
T. the trial below II verdict was rendered #
y the defendant town. Some evidence o
e fered by the plaintiff was excluded by IL
court on objection of the counsel for ii
defendant, and the case was appealed q
exceptions taken by plaintiff TO such I'll
ing of the court. This case was argued |
= j. II. Watson and Roswell Farnhau
EsqS., for Carpenter and by j. *. DarliL
ana Harvey for town of CUrinlh.
N James Doherty ". Robert Mudgett W,
A. an action in which the pialntl
he sought to recover of defcnda
n the value of II Ya,isc and its content
-, which as the plaintiff claimed dcfen
'u AMI had COuVprtpu The N.tiI-,. ruutuiut