Essex County herald. [volume] (Guildhall, Vt.) 1873-1964, 1886-03-26

EsseX County Court Record.
The March term of our county court
convened at Guildhall on the 10Th
inst, present Hon. J. w. Rowell, pre-
siding Judge, and Messrs. W. II. Harris
horn and L. r. Turner, assistant
judges. After prayer by Rev. Mr.. Nc
Leod, the court was formally opened,
and the petit jurors were called and
sworn.
Two cases were assigned for trial,
viz: Leavitt VS.. IIartshorn, and Weth-
erbee vs. Day. The first was disposed
Of by agreement, and the second, after
considerable discussion, was continued.
The respondent, in State vs.. Henry
! Frame for burglary and larceny, re-
! tracted his former plea OF not guilty
and pleaded guilty, and was sentenced
to two years hard labor in the State
prison. This disposed of all the cases
set for jury trial, and the jurors were
| discharged, having been in attendance
! less than two hours.
| The cases Of Beattie vs.4lilliard, and
ONeil VS.. Blodgett were continued,
and seem to be doing as well as usual.
The case of Chas. Rich VS.. Albert G..
Rosebrook was entered 'with the
Court" There is very interesting
question in this case The case is tres,
pass for lot Of logs. The logs were
cut by a third party and drawn away
from plaintiffs land and deposited Oh
the way to the Connecticut river. The
party cutting supposed he had right
to cut the logs and draw them away.
This party hired the defendant to draw
the logs from where he had left them
to the Connecticut river. Defendant
so drew them for hire, and being f.
financially responsible, plaintiff brought
suit against him for the taking and
conversion of his logs, and claimed
that the measure Of damages Is the
value of the logs when taken by de-
PENDANT, who claims On the contrary
that it is the value of the stumpagc or
trees when standing. The defendant
claims plaintiff should recover the
damage done him by cutting his trees
only. Plaintiff claims that he was the
owner of the lo"s at the tine defend
ant took them and is entitled to re-
cover what they were worth when de-
PENDANT converted them.
In the case of State vs.. Geo. Ii. Por-
ter the bonds were chaucered to $40.
This was an indictment for rape. In
the Two cases of State VS.. George d.
Barney for selling Intoxicating liquor,
the Court refused TO CHANGER the bonds
and Judgment was rendered for the
full amount of the bonds, amounting
in the two cases to 5000. By the dis,
posal of these cases the docket is free
from State cases.
The case of w. L. Ladd VS.. J. A
Gray, referred to in our last issue, was
disposed of by judgment pro forma fol-
plaintiff on report OF Referee. ENcep
tons were taken aud the case passed
to the Supreme Court.
The report Of the Commissioners il
the case of e. G. Robinson and Geo. IL
fitzgerald VS.. The Montreal Telegraph
Company ct ais was accepted, anC
Judgment was rendered that petition
ers pay $40 per annuln for the priv
lege of running telephone wires on de
PENDANTS poles from Norton to IslanC
Pond.
A divorce was granted to Sarah Y
; Covell VS.. John Covell for refusal t.
support, and the custody of daugh
ter decreed to petitioner, with tn,
household furniture and organ as ali
: mony.
On the chancery docket there is moth
ing worthy of mention.
There were fifteen new entries on tn
> docket. (some of which, from their ma
ture, promise quite u belligerent tern
= in September) and fourteen old case
disposed of, making the number OF
= the September calendar one in exces
of the last term.
. yyorsE, yJvovsug