Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1888-01-06
THE SUPREME COURT.
Opening of the Term for Cbittendeu
County-Tbe Noyes VIII Case.

County-Tbe Noyes VIII Case.
The term of Supreme Court for Chit
tenden con atty opened yesterday morning
with these officers Hon. Homer +.
Royce, chief Judge Hon. Jonathan Ross,
Hon. II. Henry Powers and Hon. Russell
5. Taft, assistant judges Orman p. Ray,
clerk David J. Foster, Statess attorney
Joseph Barton, sheriff The term was
opened with prayer by Rev Dr. Eaton.
The docket was called and cases were
marked rs follows Carous Noyes apt.
vs.. the estate of V. p. Moves, continued
to the general term by agreement Buel
H. Day, adm'r apt. w. the estate of Wait
llurlburt, Judgment for the defendant af-
| iirmed George Alger, apt. vs. Ray o.
Castle, continued to the general term by
| agreement
In the case of Vernon p. Noyes, d.
Noyes Burton contestant, a motion for a
| continuance to the general term on the
part of the contestant was argued by K.
H. Hard and Henry Ballard for the con
| teStant aud w. L. Burnap for the will.
The motion was granted. Motions for
continuance to the general term were
also heard in the cases of Mary f. Nichols
W.. Henry +. Nichols ct ais, and l.. F.
Wilbur ad'r. w. Henry f. Nichols ct al,
by Messrs. Wilbur. Roberts and Hard,
aud the motion was granted
The case If the town of Huntington vs..
|
| Roberts arguing for the plaintiff and H.
| X. Hard for the defendant. The case of
| Harry Ross, administrator, vs. David
White was argued by the same gentle
men. Decision in both cases was re
served
The case of H. F. Wilbur VS.. Edward
Flannery and o. p. Ray, trustee, was the
last case considered, and Mr.. Wilbur had
not completed his argument when a re-
cess was taken until o O'Clock this morn
ing. The main question is whether money
paid into the hands of the clerk of the
Court of Chancery can be reached,by trus-
tee process.
The term will not last more than day
or so at the fartbest.
Several Cases Heard by the Court-A Final
Adjournment Reached.
During the second day of the Supreme
Court of Chittenden county, a large
amount of business was disposed Of and at
about OF clock the court ad journed finally
for the term. In the case of l.. f. Wilbur
vs.. Edward Flannery and Trustee o. p
Ray, l.. +. Wilbur finished his argume Mt
that he commenced the night before
Seneca Hazelton followed for the de-
PENDANT and w. l.. Burnap made the clos
ing argument for the plaintiff. Decision
was reserved.
In the case Of Malaney and Blakey vs..
Leslie Taft NJ H. Alexander made the open
ing argument and S. II, Davis followed for
: the defendant and l.. f. Wilbur closed for
/ the plaintiffs. The question was which
9 party should take the burden of proof.
The plaintiffs claimed they let the de
. PENDANT have sound horse to perform a
! certain journey, and that the defendant
drove it to perform Il longer and different
journey and when the horse was returned
:, to the plaintiffs he was foundered and
greatly injured. The plaintiffs claimed
that inasmuch rs he received it sound and
= all right, and returned it greatly injured
that the burden was on the defendant to
2 show that the injury was not brought on
by any fault Of his, and if he failed to
: show that he should be liable for the dam
ages, The defendant claimed it was for
. the plaintiffs to show that the defendant
injured the horse. Decision was reserved
In the case of Roberts vs. Anterior NJ
H. Alexander argued for the plaintiff and
n l.. f. Wilbur followed for the defendant
4 This is a case where the plaintiff brought
his suit on note made In this State
where both parties then resided After
q ward the plaintiff removed from the State
r, and the defendant thereafter was declared
8 an insolvent debtor and obtained his dis
= charge in the district Of Chittenden from
! his debts. The plaintiff did not prove hi:
" claim. The question is does the discharge
!, bar the claim; with court.
In the case of Clark W.. Carey, II. F
! Wolcott argued for the defendant and H
= n. Deavitt, attorney for the plaintiff. moi
r. having prepared brief under the rules o.
court, the court reversed the judgmen
-, that had been rendered for the plaintiff il
4 the County Court and decided that tn,
:, writ abate.
= The case of Howard VS.. Writers wa
# next heard H. n. Deavitt argued for tn
n plaintiff and w. L. Burnap tor the defend
\, ant; with court.
A. Decisions were announced in the case
" of G. 5. Appleton ct, wife VS.. Sidne.
Is Gillett one was remanded TO Count
s. Court for additional report and in tn
i. other, a case of trover, the judgment o
q County Court in favor of plaintiffs wa
y. affirmed
n The case of the State VS.. Eustac
"a OClare was remanded to County Co ur
II for sentence.
The court hen adjourned,