The united opinion. [volume] (Bradford, Vt.) 1881-1970, 1886-06-25
Orange County Court, June
Term, 1886.
Hon j. w HOWELL. Presiding Judge.
Hon. Jos .TEBBETTS. .ss.+ J,aooS
Hon. CYRUS u. LATHROP,
Hon. L. G. HINCKLEY, Clerk.
l.. p. BARRON, sheriff.

Aspsf Ind
Hon. L. G. HINCKLEY. Clerk.
p. BARRON, sheriff.
+. w, SMITH. Esq. States Atty.
j. Fl. MIMMs. Esq, Reporter.
We closed our report on Wednesday
two weeks ago. when No. 1919, James
S. Weed V. j. A. Keenan, was on trial.
That trial lasted until Friday night
and a verdict for the plaintiff to recov-
$40 was rendered on Saturday fore
noon. Harvey and Watson were coun-
sci for the plaintiff and Smith & Sloan
for the defendant.
Saturday, June 70. State V. Richard
Kennedy apt. is tried to-day. This is
a prosecution for the illegal sale of ci-
der at a grocery. Darling for the re-
spondant claimed that the law was not
intended to and did not prohibit the
sale of sweet cider at grocery or 9th
er place of public resort, and that the
jury were judges of the law in crimi-
nal cases and argued the question to
the jury. The respondent was acquit-
ted. States attorney for the state, OAR
ling and Hebard for the defense.
Monday, June IA. No. 1888, State v.
Edison Magoon for larceny. The coun-
sci for respondent demur to the infor-
nation which had been filed by the
states attorney in this case, and the
case was heard at this time on demur-
rer. 1t is claimed that larceny is an
infamous crime, that the constitution
of the United States, Article of the
Amendments provides that "No per-
son shall be held to answer for a CAPT
tai or otherwise infamous crime, UNI
less on presentment or Indictment
of a grand jury" and that although the
laws of Vermont provide that larceny
may be prosecuted under an informa-
ton of the states attorney that such
provision of our state law is unconsti-
tutional and in opposition to the above
section of the constitution of the Unit
ed States and also to Article IA of the
Amendments which provides that
"No state shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the Unit
ed States; nor shall any state deprive
any person of life, liberty or property
without due process of law. That
the law of Vermont, which provides
that larceny may be prosecuted under
an information is can abridgement of
the privileges and immunities of citi-
zens of the United States,' and if the
respondent should be found guilty
would be depriving him of his liberty,
if imprisoned, without due process of
law. The court overruled the demur-
rer and adjudged the respondent guilty.
to which exceptions were taken and
the case goes to the Supreme court.
Darling for the state, Heath for the
respondent.
State v. Edwin Sweeny, a prosecu-
ton for adultery, is next taken up.
Sweeny ran away with the wife of one
Day from Williston, came to Corinth
and went to work for Charles Sleeper.
Soon after, the injured husband fol-
lowed the guilty pair and commenced
prosecution against Sweeny. He was
bound up for being found in bed with
Mrs. Day. The justice issued a war
rant for his commitment to Jail, alleg-
ing therein that he was guilty of adul-
terry, which is technically a different
offense from the one he was found
guilty of. On the evening of the firts