The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1888-05-23

visions; that he did not believe that any
such course was ever pursued or heard Of
before in Vermont; that the very appear
ance of the respondent before the grand
jury, his looks, or the manner in which he
conducted himself might be what the jury
wanted to complete the chain of evidence
against him; that under such circumstances
the respondent ought not to be held TO strict
technicaity as in plea in abatement. The
demurrer was overruled Judge Ross dis
sented and said that while he agreed with
his associates that respondent ought not to
have been compelled to appear before the
grand jury he was of the opinion that IL
ought to have been reached by plea in
abatement. The states attorney asked and
was granted leave to traverse. States At
torney Bisbee for state; Heath & Fay and
G. f. Clough for respondent.
j. w. Brock Us. j. w. Clark, appellant.
This case was heard on the pleadings and
referees report. The county court rendered
Judgment for the plaintiff for S3645 and
costs. Exceptions by the defendant. Judg-
ment affirmed. G. w. Wing for plaintiff
G. NJ. Bennett for defendant.
f. A. Preston Us. Clark King, admins
traitor. The question in the county court
was whether the residence of the late j. A.
$: White of Northfield was at the time of
his death for the purpose Of taxation in the
Northfeld graded school or the Gouldsville
districts. Plaintiff, as collector, brought
suit for the graded school district. The
jury disagreed and Judge Rowel ordered a
pro fornld verdict for plaintiff for S40i.30.
Defendant excepted. The question before
the supreme court was whether the action
of the listers was conclusive in setting the
estate of said White in the graded school
district in the years 1884 and 1885. The SUI
preme court decided that the action of the
listers was not conclusive. Judgment of
the county court reversed and cause re-
manded. Johnson and Plumley for plain
tiff: Shurtleff for defendant,
State rs. John Crimmns. This was an
information charging respondent with him
dering Deputy-sherif o. o. Davis in the
execution of his office at Northfield March "a,
1883. On trial in county court Judge Rowell
charged the jury, who afterwards brought in
averdict of guilty, that voluntary drunken
ness would be no excuse, and said that
under the modern rule it aggravated rather
than palliated offences, to which charge re-
spondent excepted. Respondent also filed
a motion in arrest of judgment, praying
that the judgment be arrested and the infor-
nation quashed, because it did not allege
, the intent. Judge Tyler who delivered the
opinion of the court, said that the charge to
the jury was not misleading. 1t was not
| reversible error, but if the crime charged
| was one of degrees it might be. The allie
| cations in the information were not suf-
! fiCient to convict respondent of the crime OF
| hindering an officer but were sufficient for
a verdict of guilty of a common assault Re-
spondent was fined $50 and costs of prose
cution or alternative sentence. States
Attorney Bisbee for state; G. w. and J. G
Wing for respondent.
DevereuaX u MeServe rs. BabCock & Bar
| nard. This was an action in general as
sumpsit brought to recover the balance of a
book account. The case was tried at the
| March term QSS7) of Washington county
court, at which trial plaintiff obtained a judg.
ment for S762.91, with interest from August
9, 1886, and costs, to which judgment de-
fendant excepted. The question was
whether plaintiff could recover for intoxi.
eating liquors legally sold in Massachusetts
knowing the same to be purchased for lille.
gal sale in Vermont. Chief-justce Royce
who delivered the opinion of the supreme
court, said that the court in its decision was
but following the current of decisions
already made in Vermont. Judgment OF
county court affirmed. G. w. Wing fol-
| plaintiffs; Pitkin Huse for defendants
A. n. Tilden rs. John Crmmins and wife
In charcery. This was bill Of foreclosure
brought by the orator. The contention was
as to the homestead right. No decision. S
G. Shurtleff for orator; j. n Johnson and
| G.. W. Wing for defendants.
Barre Railroad Company as. Granite Rail
road Company and Barre Railroad Company
as Montpelier & White River Railroad
| Company. Both cases were heard together
being petitions for the appointment of com
missioners to locate crossings and adjus
gued that special commissioners could no
be appointed, but the state railroad com
missioners should be called out. No decis
ion. S. G. Shurtleff for petitioner; B. f
Fifeld for petitionees
j. III. Lucia ct al as. village of Montpelier
In chancery. This was bill brought 10y
orator to enjoin the bailitfs, water commits
sioners and treasurer of the village of Mont
pelier from taking any measures towards
carrying out the vote of said village o
Montpelier, taken at village meeting hel,
September 26, 1887, to lay another mali
water pipe from the reservoir in Berlin Il
some convenient point in said village
BY agreement of counsel the case passed tC
and was heard by the supreme court on tn,
testimony. The orator argued that til,
evidence tended to show that the object o
the additional MAN, was for private rathe
than public purposes; that the village had
already from eight to fifty times the
amount of water needed for strictly public
purposes. The defendant argued that tn,
supply of large number ofinhabitants will
pure water is a public purposes that th
vote of September 26, 1887, was legslativ,
act on the part of the village, and that tn,
court was bound to assume that gooC
reasons existed for such vote; that no Ques
ton was made but that the present waite
plant of Montpelier village was obtaine,
under legal conditions and for egitmat,
public purpose; that great portion of tn,
water of Berlin pond runs to waste; that n,
principle of law is more solidly establishe,
than that when, in the honest, legitimat,
pursuit of a lawful object, municipality
obtains water supply, it need not let til,
excess thereof run to waste, but may put /
to profitable use. The bill was dismissed
with costs. S. c. ShurtleH for orator
Senter & Kemp and Pitkin & Huse for de
feudant
Town of Roxbury rs. Central Vernon
Railroad Company. This case was tried 10y
jury at the March QSS5) term, at which tria
the jury brought in verdict for the plant
iff of S3,3S4.76 and costs, which, witt
interest, amounts to S4,l6j. Judgment fo
plaintiff affirmed. S. G. Shurtleff, Zed S
Stanton, and Senter & Kemp for plaintiff
G. w. Porter for defendant
Charles w. Selinas as. Vermont Stat,
Agricultural Society. This case was triet
by jury at the September 1850 term. Tn,
plaintiff obtained verdict for S725 anC
costs. Judgment for plaintiff affirmed
Execution stayed until determination o
trustee suit T. X. Gordon for plaintiff; G
w. Brownell for defendant.
The case of Levi j. Bolster was continued
The cases of Sarah A. Bacon, administrators
as. Perley Belknap and T. V. Perrin TowI
of Worcester rs. Town Of East Montpelier
appellant Uhe pioneer pauper case under
the new law, State rs. Alexander Jangraw
appellant Josiah w. Parker as, National Lif,
Insurance Company, j. IL, Holt as. Samuel
] DapialS JOSaph Xattar Omar Millar