Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1890-01-10


into court on exceptions to that decision.
ID. j. Foster and Seneca Haselton made
arguments for the plaintiff and Henry Bal
lard and H. f. Wolcott for the defendant
The case of II. d. Wheeler against L.
Seldom came up from the City Court on ex.
ceptions by the defendant. Wheeler as
deputy sheriff attached a wagon as the prop
erty OF G. b. Arnold ia a suit against Ar
mold. Mrs. Arnold claimed the wagon and
sued out writ of replevin for the wagon,
which was placed in the hands of E. Seden
as constable. The latter finding that he
could not serve it without going outside of
the city got Judge Peck to authorize him to
serve the writ and proceeded to serve it.
After taking possession Of the wagon he
discovered that he could not be authorized
to serve Il replevin writ and returned
the wagon. In the meantime Wheel
er had procured an execution and
made his return thereon that he could find no
property in Arnolds possession on which TO
levy, and returned the writ TO j. j. En-
right instead of returning it into court. all
before Selden had returned the wagon. En-
right kept the execution in his possession
seven OF eight months and returned it in
court. Wheeler brought suit against Sci
den to recover damages for taking the
the City Court rendered judgment for the
plaintiff, to which the defendant excepted.
d. j. Foster argued in behalf Of the appel
liant, and j. j. Enright and w. L. Burnap
for the plaintiff.
An interesting hearing was that in the
case of Hamilton S. Peck VS.. f. Henry
Powell. This is petition for writ of
mandamus, brought TO have the law con-
strued, providing for the taxation of costs
in certain criminal causes heard in the City
Court. The Legislature of 1888 passed an
act purporting to regulate the fees in all
criminal causes, and the language used, it is
claimed, applies to Justice and municipal
courts. - The auditor claims the act ap-
plies to the City Court, and the city judge
claims the City Court is exempt from its
operation.
In his argument Judge Peck claimed that
the phrase fees of justice and municipal
courts" was unhappy as there were no such
fees. He also claimed that there was no
Inconsistency in allowing the city judge
larger fees than municipal courts as the
City Court has larger powers. 1t has jurs-
| diction in the case OF certain crimes in this
city and can try civil suits where the sum
involved is not over $500. He argued that
the auditor would not include the City
| Court in the list of municipal courts if it
were called the superior court or any other
name except City Court.
Auditor Powell said the only questions
were did the Legislature have the right tc
regulate the fees and was the City Court q
municipal court ? He gave an exhaustive
review of the legislation in relation to bill:
of costs in disclosure proceedings. He
said that prior to 1878 these costs were tax
| a1I -,
was then provided that il the disclosure re
suited in the conviction Of the seller tn,
costs of the disclosure proceedings shoulc
be taxed against him. Since 1882 full
bill of costs has been allowed as for a IT ria
by court that being the construction put
upon Nos 45 and 103 of the acts of 1889.
No. 3, of the acts of 1888 prescibes th'
first definite fee taxable in such cases and il
the first and only authority not resting
upon analogy or construction for the allow
| ance of any fees to the court. This act pre-
scribes in terms a fee of 81. so to the 'mu
| nicipal courts The auditor claims tina
this applies to the court OF any municipa
| corporation whether chartered as a villag
or city. The compensation of but one Other
court is affected by this provision and tha
is the village court of Rutland He though
there was nothing in the general provision
why municipal Judge shoul,
receive twice the fees of a Justice
The fact that one was called city judg
did not change him from municipal judge
In relation to the right to charge the righ
to alter amend or repeal was reserved il
the act OF 1872.
Owing to the illness of Judge Tyler an
the absence of a quorum on the bench, tn
cases of George w. Hurlbut, appellant, VS.
the estate of Wait Hurlbut; William Devin
against the Central Vermont Railroad com
pany; John f. Lavell, administrator of tn
estate of j. a. Stone against the Contra
Vermont Railroad company Thomas Al
buckle VS.. X. b. Walker; in re Rebecc
Wells's estate VS.. the Congregations
church in Underhill, appellant, were con
tinued to the general term of the Suprem
! COurt