Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1890-01-10
THE SUPREME COURT.
OPENING OF THE JANUARY TERM
FOR CHlTTENDEN COUNTY.
An Important Bridge Case-Is Intoxica-
tion in Itself Crime, or Must a Man
be Found in that Condition p
Other Cases Hoard.

The January term of the Supreme Court
for Chittenden county opened ct the court
house in this city Tuesday, Chief Justice
Royce and Judges Taft and Rowell presid-
ing, Judge Tyler being detained at his hotel
by a slight illness. The other officers of the
court present were; Clerk, Orman p Ray;
States Attorney, David J. Foster; Sheriff,
Joseph Barton. The bar of the county was
well represented and among the lawyers
present from other counties were Gov. w.
p. Dillingham; and G. w. Kennedy of
Waterbury. The session opened with pray
Ell by Rev. F. W. Olmstead.
The first case heard was that of Horace
Tyler against the towns of Essex, Jericho,
Underhll and Wiiston. This case was ap-
pealed from The September term of County
Court, 1899, where the plaintiff was given
judgment for SO and costs for damages
resulting from an accident to the plaintiffs
horse on a bridge over the Winooski river
between the towns of Essex and Williston.
At the trial of this case the defendants re-
quested the court to render judgment for
the defendants on the ground that there was
an insufficient notice the defendant towns of
Jericho and Underhll never having received
any notice of the defect complained of and no
claim having been made against them until
the commencement of the suit about a year
after the accident occurred. The defend
ants also requested the court to render
judgment in their favor on the ground
that the injury complained of occurred
between the end Of the bridge in question
and planking put in by the town of Will
liston for their own convenience and bene-
fit in making a fill or approach to the
I,.il notI ;nI . 1,
court, and Judgment having been rendered
exceptions. The plaintiffs counsel
claim that it was necessary to notify
only the towns in which the bridge
was located as was done, and that the fill
was part OF the bridge. Arguments were
made for the appellants by V. A. Bullard
and NJ. A. Bingham, and for the plaintiff
by Daniel Roberts The other attorneys
in the case are Robert Roberts for the
| plaintiff, and Henry Ballard and NJ. II.
Alexander for the defendant.
The case Of the State against Emerson Aus
tin, appellant, was next heard. in the County
| Court demurrer was fled alleging that
! the word found was omitted from the
complaint charging the respondent with in
| toxication. The demurrer was overruled
and the complaint adjudged sufficient
whereupon exceptions were taken by the re-
spondent. V. A. Bullard argued in behalf
of the respondent that intoXication was not
crime under the statute unless the person
intoxicated was found in that condition
by another person. States Attorney Fos-
ter on the other hand argued that this view
was absurd, for it made the person who
| found another intoxicated party to the
crime He insisted that the act of becom-
i,,tN tal ", prip,
the statute Mr.. Bullard replied that the
prohibition law did not make it crime to
drink liquor and the statute contemplated
intoxication as crime only when it result
ed in some direct injury to society.
AT the opening Of the afternoon session
arguments were heard In the case OF NJ. H.
Alexander against school district No. 6 in
the town of Fairfax. This was an action
of general assumpsit to recover the amount
of school district order payable to one
| Warren and held by the plaintiff, who in
the County Court secured judgment for
S4J. 32 and COSTS the defendant taking eX-
ceptions. 1t was claimed by the defendant
that the order was not negotiable and that
it was given for claim by Warren which
the district had no right to vote to pay.
The defendant set up in special plea that
the order was given to pay one of the dis
trict officers for money which he had OK
pended i'll defending suit brought against
him by a taxpayer for being arrested and
| committed to Jail on a warrant issued tC
collect tax. The defendant also claimed
that tho collector was not eligible to the
office of collector and therefore that he was
a trespasser, and in consequence that the
district could not vote money to pay the
expense of the suit brought against the col
! ii rba MIR A
red to the plea and claimed that it set up nc
defence and that if the district was moi
liable TO pay the expense of the suit brought
against its collector and committee 1t be
came liable by voting 10 pay it and giving
the order to pay It, NJ H. Alexander anC
l.. f. Wilbur argued for the plaintiff nnt
j. j. Monahan for the defendant.
The next case heard was Sidney Gillet
against Henry Brewster. At the Septem
Der term of County Court 1889, iudgmen
was rendered on the report of the referee
for the defendant in an action brought by
the plaintiff to recover back money overpaiC
to the defendant. S. H. Davis and D
j, Foster argued for the plaintiff and Henry
Ballard for the defendant.
In the case Of Rosa Breen against Johr
Early and John Ryan the exceptions wer'
withdrawn and judgment of the County
Court for the plaintiff for SO and cost
was affirmed.
At the opening of Wednesday session til,
case of Lyman Hadley ct al. against Peter
Bordo was heard. This was an action foi
false warranty of horse the trial Of which
at the September term of County Court
1889, resulted in verdict for the plaintiff
for $50. 80 and costs, to which the defend
ant took exceptions on the ground that tn,
contract was committed to writing and con
taned the warranty; that parole testimony
was not admissible to prove the contract
and for alleged variances between the proof
and the declaration. The arguments to
the plaintiff were made by j. j, Enrigh
and j. a. Brown and for the defendant by
ii. f. Wolcott.
The second case heard was that of Joseph
W Lavigne, administrator, against A. A.
Graves. This was an action for damage
amounting to so, 900, brought by the al
ministrator of Moses Geroux, late of Wi
nooski, against the defendant for negligen C
in causing the death of said Geroux by rea
son of an improperly constructed derricl
which was provided by the defendant for th
deceased to work with. The question arises
! ON tl,, dafandont's 1pmurrar IN the rlain