Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1888-10-05
CHITTENDES COUNTY COURT.


uHN = session.
Thursday was divorce day in County
Court, bills having been granted as fol-
lows Matilda f. Myers rs. George *.
Myers for wilful desertion. II. S. Peck
for the petitioner, the States attorney for
the petitionee. Jane Dunning vs.. James
Dunning, for intolerable severity and de.
sertion. A. V. Spalding FOR the petitioner,
H. f.. Colyin VS.. Jennie b. Colvin, wilful
desertion. Hard g. Cushman for the p p
titiOner.
The case of Thomas w. Heap, assignee,
vs.. w. 5. Noyes, was continued on terms
rs to the defendant. w. L. Burnap for
the plaintiff, j. w. Russell for the defend
ant. one johnson of Richmond
pleaded guilty to the charge of five
liquor offences and was fined $50 and costs.
In the cases of the State VS.. A. n. Aus
tin, of Milton, under the liquor law, the
respondents attorney filed an affidavit Of
DR.. Dixon to the effect that the respond
ent was sick and unable to attend court,
whereupon the cases were continued.
The Consideration of Divorce Cases Con-
tiuued During Fridays Session.
The time in the County Court was large
ly occupied on Friday with the hearing of
the divorce case of j. l.. Barney VS.. Lydia
"A. Barney. The parties live in Williston
and the case excites considerable inter
est. The hearing was begun in the fore
noon, continued during the afternoon and
concluded at an extra session in the even
ing, decision being reserved. Henry Bal
lard appeared for the petitioner and O. p.
Ray and States Attorney Foster for the
petltionee.
A bill was decreed in the case of H. f..
Colvin vs.. Jennie Il. Colvin Gu the ground
of adultery. a bill was also granted in
the case OF Jane Dunning vs.. James Dun
ming for the same cause.
The chanCery docket was called over
and the following entries were ordered
Mary j. smith VS.. w. ID. Mars, the Bad
win Manufacturing company vs. Baldwin
a Cheney, H. >. Peck assignee vs. q. f..
Macomber ana wife and G.. f. Ward VS..
q. NJ Styles, with the chancellor J. VI.
NOyeS special administrator vs.. o. a.
Burton, decree tor the petitioner ; Arthur
f. BCrdick VS.. Eliza l.. Dixon ct ais, or
der for further publication.
There WAS hearing in the case of Ben
j1mn b HAtch's estate, Ellen Ia. Cor
don appellant on an appeal from the Pro
bate Court. Decision was reserved. l..
f. Wilbur for the estate, L. X. Gordon for
the appellant.
Decisions in various Divorce Cases Final
ADJOURNMENT Reached
The County Court met at $40 o'clock
Saturday morning, when the court an
nounced the decision il the divorce cases
Of Barney ". Barney ; j. l.. Barney's pc
tton for divorce was refused; also the
prayer of Mrs. Lydia A. Barney for di-
vorce was denied, but she was granted the
custody Of the minor children, SO per
month for their support and the house
hold furniture.
The case OF Seymour Macna VS.. Albina
Machia, petition tor divorce, on the
ground that the petitioner was a minor
when married, was heard The petition
was dismissed, and exceptions We're taken
by the pc lltlouer.
The foreclosure case of Burdick vs..
DlXson ct ais, was entered with chan
CeliOr.
In the case Of Mary Il. Hatch VS. Ellen
l.. Gordon 10y her guardian, L. X Gordon,
an appeal from the Probate Court, the ques-
ton being at issue was whether the plain
lift was entitled to homestead and dover
in the estate of her husband under hi,
will. The will provei that after the pay
ment of $500 legaCies, one-third of the re-
malnder was to 90 To the widow, two
ninths to a daughter and tour-ninths to Il
son. The will did not express the one
third given to the widow as being in lieu
of dover ana homestead the defendant
claimed that inasmuch as the whole estate
was willed away the widow should have
no dover and homestead, but the court
decided the widow was entitled to the
provision made for her in the will ana
dover and homestead, because it did not
clearly appear that the legacy to the
widow WAS to be in lieu OF dover and
homestead. l.. +. Wilbur for plaintiff
and L. h. Gordon tor defendant. The
value of the estate was about $1,000 Mr..
Hatch died IN 1871 and the family have
lived on the homestead together without
taking any action to have dover aud
homestead set off Until now. Exceptions
were taken by the defendant to the
Supreme court.
liz the afternoon the case of j. j. En-
right VS.. j. H. May, general assumpsit,
was heard, by Judges Nichols and Smith,
the claim being for legal services rendered
the defendant from 1850 to the pres
ent year, the defendant putting in the
claim that he discharged the plaintiff
some time since. j. j. Enrighu and w
l.. Burnap for plaintiff and 5. H. Davis
for defendant. AT the conclusion ot the
hearing in this case the Court adjourned
for the term, the decision in the last case
heard being Reserved.