The united opinion. [volume] (Bradford, Vt.) 1881-1970, 1891-06-19

expense OF the defendant. Stow for
plaintiff, White for defendant.
No. 81. Between the same parties
and with the same counsel was contin.
ued on the same terms.
No. 88. Fannie j. Lamb v. Charles
| w. j. Lamb. Petition for divorce dis
missed. B0yden for petitioner.
No. 80. Emma l.. Roberts v. Harris
A. Roberts. Petition for divorce en-.
tered June 1890. This is case about
which. there has been good deal of
controversy in regard to temporary
alimony to enable the libellant to carry
on the case. A bill of divorce was
granted for intolerable severity. The
minor children were given into the
custody of the mother and she was
also decreed the personal property that
she brought with her when she was
married. Pickett for the petitioner,
Watson for the petitiOnee.
No. 80. Dora B. Holman v. Chas.
l.. Holman. Divorce granted for re-
fusal to support. Custody of minor
children decreed the mother and all
mony as per stipulation between the
parties OH file in court. Plumley for
petitioner.
No. 80. Eunice A. Adams v. Geo.
M. Sleeper. Action Of replevin tried
by jury, being the second and last jury
case. After hearing the testimony the
the court directed verdict of one cent
damages for the plaintiff. Exceptions
by the defendant were allowed and
the case is on its way to the Supreme
Court. Darling for plaintiff, Stow and
White for defendant.
No 1903. W. S. Curtis v. Chas. A.
Watson and others and trustees. Ac.
ton of assumpsit. Heard by the
court on demurrer to the second count
in the declaration. Demurrer over
ruled and declaration adjudged suffi-
cient. Exceptions by the defendant
and the case goes to the Supreme
Court. Shurtletf for plaintiff, s. E..
Pnngree and Hunton Il Stickney for
defendants, Martin & Archibald for
trustees.
No. 1O4. Edward E Carr, treasurer
v. Almon Underhill, apt. Petition Cor
an extent against defendant as collect
or of taxes. Heard on motion for
continuance. Continued and referred
to d. e. Denison. White for plain
tiff. Darling for defendant.
No. l06. Frank W. Clogston ".
Mary E. Clogston. Libel for divorce
filed Dec 1890, dismissed. Darling
| for luellamt
No ll2. Helen S. West v. Royal F.
West. Divorce granted for adultery
The custody of the minor children de-
creed to the mother. Watson for pc
titioner.
No. 1l6. Chas. F. Smith v. LYMAN
P Brown and others. This case was
| OH the Jury list and was heard the first
day of the term on motion made by
the defendant for continuance. Con-
tinued at the expense of the defend
ants. Darling and Harvey for plain
tiff. Farnham for defendants.
No. III. w. s. Curtis v. Chas. A.
Watson. Assumpsit. Heard by court
| ton. Demurrer Over-ruled and the
amended declaration declared sufficient.
Exceptions by defendant allowed and
the case goes to the Supreme Court.
Shurtleff for plaintiff, Hunton & Stick
ney for defendant.
No. 118. Nellie Preston v. Luther
Preston. Divorce granted for intoler-
able severity. The custody of the
minor children is given to the mother
and alimony according to agreement
between the parties. Darling for pc.
tltioner.
No. 1872. William F. Davis v. Ade-
laide Davis. Petition for divorce.
This was heard June I'd on motion
by the wife for temporary alilnony to
enable her to carry on her suit. An
order was made that the husband pay
the wife $4,000 by June Sth, to MAIN
tain litigation which was paid. When
the case was finally heard on its merits
the petition was dismissed and then the
petitioner probably realized that his
$4,000 was worse than thrown away.
Watson and Harvey for petitioner.
Hunton Il Stickney for petitionee.
No. 1877. State v. John H.. Mayo.
Prosecution for forgery. Plea of
guilty of uttering forged paper. Fine
800 90 and costs $22.O0, with alterna-
tive sentence of confinement in the
house of correction. Fine and costs
paid June 10th. States Attorney for
the prosecution.
No. 142 State v. Lila Ann A. Fos-
ter and Chase Smith. The respond
ents are charged with poisoning the
husband of Lila Ann and were tried
year ago, the jury not agreeing. This
term the bail was discharged and tine
respondents allowed to 60 on their
own recrgnizance. States Attorney
for the prosecution, Harvey and Smith
Il Sloan for defense.
No. 144. State v. Darling Eastman.
This is a part of the famous cider
brandycase in Corinth that aroused so
much interest few weeks ago. The
bail is called and forfeited for nom
appearance of the respondent.
Among the new entries more than
10 in number are the following in
which was judgment, viz: No. 17S.
State v. Robert Byrnes. Indictment
for larceny. Plea, guilty. Sentenced
% be confined to hard labor in the
house of correction i'll Rutland two
ears to be computed from the day of
and for costs, and to
stand committed till sentence is COM
)lied with.
No. 179. State v. Charles E. Good
vim INDIGNANT for infant RI commit